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: > > > > 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? > > > > 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. I pulled it into the arm64 for-next/core as well (to be pushed out later today). -- Catalin _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
