On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 01:14:37PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 01:06:19PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > OK, I can do that for the KVM stuff - I've been actively trying to keep > > the patches separate where there's no dependencies between them as it > > avoids things getting caught up in review for more complicated stuff or > > cases where someone decides they want extra cleanup while we're at it > > which is especially useful when only some of the series is needed for > > building on top of as is the case here. > I get what you're saying, but I still it find it much easier to get a > series of independent but functionally-related patches with a cover letter. > I usually end up cherry-picking the ones that are ready to go, so then > there's no need to respin those. I see - I'd not seen that happening with the arch/arm64 stuff, more the opposite, so I was working on that basis.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
