On 11 November 2013 09:56, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Il 11/11/2013 16:49, Christoffer Dall ha scritto: >> I don't think it would have made much sense - that patch was part of a >> series that was touching mainly arch/arm/kvm/* and therefore I >> included it in my pull. It would have been strange to have a >> kvm-arm-next tree that included 75% of the functionality because Marc >> happens to have another patch that touches arch/arm and arch/arm64 and >> have two untestable trees until the merge window... > > Yes, I found the original series now at > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/274722/. > > BTW, why did the arm/arm64 patch move from patch 1 in Marc's post to > patch 4 here? hmm, probably I just goofed something up when exporting the mbox from mutt - it made sense for me the psci part was the last one as well I guess, but I can't say I applied my brain to the reordering. > Also, the description says "this also requires a patch to > kvmtool so the generated DT matches the expectations of the guest > (posted separately)". Does this apply to QEMU as well? If so, can you > please point me to the QEMU patch? How does this patch affect guest > ABI, and is guest ABI not yet considered stable for KVM ARM? > > Sorry for the question storm. :) > >>>> There would still be the case where I carry those arm/arm64 >>>> patches but the arm64 changes conflict with those in Marc's tree, no? >>> >>> Yes, that can still happen. Conflicts are not bad, only inconsistencies >>> are. >> >> Not sure what you mean and where we could be more consistent to make >> life easier for you. You say it should always come from the same >> person, but not necessary always from the same person? >> >> Note: I have no problem giving my ack to patches or follow any >> procedure that makes it easier, but I thought these pull requests were >> quite clean (albeit a bit late). > > The pull requests were clean and my life wasn't complicated much... On > the other hand I'm trying to understand if there's something that can be > improved because the conflict surprised me. Right now, in fact, it's > not even entirely clear to me why ARM and ARM64 have separate maintainers. > Well, KVM/ARM was my thing originally, I was, and am, the maintainer when it was merged into Linux, then Marc started doing a lot of work on there, and he did the ARM64 port and then we ended up this way. -Christoffer _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
