[PATCH] kvm: powerpc: book3s: Fix build break for BOOK3S_32

[Alexander Graf]

On 05.10.2013, at 01:45, Paul Mackerras wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 03:00:11PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> 
>> On 04.10.2013, at 14:35, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:27:02PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 04.10.2013, at 14:23, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 03.10.2013, at 06:14, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 08:08:44PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>>>>> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This was introduced by 85a0d845d8bb5df5d2669416212f56cbe1474c6b
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's a good idea to give the headline of the commit as well as the ID.
>>>>>> I also like to trim the ID to 10 characters or so.  So it should look
>>>>>> like this:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This was introduced by 85a0d845d8 ("KVM: PPC: Book3S PR: Allocate
>>>>>> kvm_vcpu structs from kvm_vcpu_cache").
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c: In function 'kvmppc_core_vcpu_create':
>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c:1182:30: error: 'struct kvmppc_vcpu_book3s' has no member named 'shadow_vcpu'
>>>>>>> make[1]: *** [arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.o] Error 1
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Acked-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus at samba.org>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Would you guys mind if I merge this into the offending patch? It's not trickled into -next yet, so rebasing should work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If not, please resend with the fixed commit message.
>>>> 
>>>> Eh - I must've missed v2 :). So that leaves only the question on whether you'd be ok to squash the patch instead. It'd help bisectability.
>>> 
>>> I'm OK with that.  If you do, why don't you squash the first of the
>>> two patches that I just sent into the commit it fixes as well?
>> 
>> Because patch 1/2 spans two separate commits it would have to get squashed into (6aa82e, 70afec) and patch 2/2 doesn't make sense to get squashed anywhere :).
> 
> Actually 70afec is fine, if you look at it, it's only 6aa82e that
> needs fixing.

True. Squashed them :).


Alex