On 11 November 2013 03:04, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Il 08/11/2013 11:07, Marc Zyngier ha scritto: >> Do the necessary byteswap when host and guest have different >> views of the universe. Actually, the only case we need to take >> care of is when the guest is BE. All the other cases are naturally >> handled. >> >> Also be careful about endianness when the data is being memcopy-ed >> from/to the run buffer. >> >> Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h | 41 +++++++++++++++++ >> arch/arm/kvm/mmio.c | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 164 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > Christoffer and Marc, please coordinate so that arm+arm64 patch go only > through one person. The conflict between your two pull requests was not > really necessary. > I don't think the same patch was in both pull requests, right? Is what you're saying that any patch that touches arm and arm64 should always come from one of us so that you reduce the chance of a merge conflict? There would still be the case where I carry those arm/arm64 patches but th arm64 changes conflict with those in Marc's tree, no? -Christoffer _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
