On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 06:35:13PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 06:35:55PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 08:17:22AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > > The next question is how do we merge this. Obviously, we can't split it > > > between trees, and this is very likely to clash with anything that we > > > will merge on the KVM side (the sysreg table is a popular place). > > > > > > Will, Catalin: Would it make sense to create a stable branch with these > > > patches, and merge it into both the arm64 and KVM trees? That'd make > > > things easier... > > > > I think the scope for conflict on our side is pretty high too, so a shared > > branch might be the best way to go. I don't want to branch just yet though, > > so I'll probably wait a week or so before setting something in stone. > > Any further thoughts on this? > > Christoffer has Acked the KVM bits, so if you're happy to do so for the > arm64 bits I can make a stable branch. Looking around, it doesn't look like there's anything outside of arm64 that'll conflict on the <asm/sysreg.h> changes, and git's happy to merge my changes with Suzuki's changes currently queued in arm64's for-next/core branch. I think it would make sense for those to be in a common branch taken by both the arm64 and KVM trees, with the KVM-specific parts being taken by KVM alone atop of that. Would everyone be happy with that? For reference, I've updated my branches so that arm64/common-sysreg only contains the common parts, with the KVM parts atop of that in kvm/common-sysreg. Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
