On 22/02/16 11:52, Brian Starkey wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:41:42AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
I'm about to push the following patch on top of the KVM tree:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h index 43688d9..31fe7d6 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h @@ -333,11 +333,6 @@ static inline void __cpu_init_hyp_mode(phys_addr_t boot_pgd_ptr, hyp_stack_ptr, vector_ptr); }
-static inline void __cpu_init_stage2(void) -{
- kvm_call_hyp(__init_stage2_translation);
-}
static inline void kvm_arch_hardware_disable(void) {} static inline void kvm_arch_hardware_unsetup(void) {} static inline void kvm_arch_sync_events(struct kvm *kvm) {} @@ -349,4 +344,11 @@ void kvm_arm_setup_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); void kvm_arm_clear_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); void kvm_arm_reset_debug_ptr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
+/* #define kvm_call_hyp(f, ...) __kvm_call_hyp(kvm_ksym_ref(f), ##__VA_ARGS__) */
+static inline void __cpu_init_stage2(void) +{
- kvm_call_hyp(__init_stage2_translation);
+}
#endif /* __ARM64_KVM_HOST_H__ */
This will create a new conflict, but will make the resolution 100% clear.
I applied this, but arm64 defconfig wouldn't build until I uncommented the '#define kvm_call_hyp(...' line.
Is that right?
This patch is intended as a merge indication so that when you do the merge with the arm64 tree, it conflicts and you can resolve it by going the right thing (merging the non-comment version of this line).
So yes, uncommenting it is the right thing to do.
Thanks,
M.