On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:41:47AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:29:31PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 07:48:28PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 06:35:13PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > 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? > > > > I'm 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. > > > > Will, Catalin: Let me know if you're going to pull from common-sysreg > > and I'll do the same and add the kvm patches above. > > I think that's what we'll do, but Catalin's out this week (we're taking it > in turns to go to work). I'd say go ahead and pull it into kvm if there > aren't any conflicts. No need to wait for us. > > Mark -- those branches are stable, right? They are now. I will not touch either branch. Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
