On 09/05/2017 15:31, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> Maybe PPC *is* the special snowflake where interaction should be >> primarily with arch maintainers rather than myself. Then let's just >> have topic branches for the occasional API patch (new KVM_CAP_* >> constants would be the gist of it) and otherwise let Michael merge >> KVM/PPC patches. > > Sadly it *is* a bit of a special snowflake Thanks for confirming! ;) Anyhow, let's keep doing things like this for a few release cycles. Michael and Paul can keep doing topic branches like they have done for other recent releases; I'll communicate more with Paul, who however shouldn't be worried if I don't pull timely from him or if I un-pull after seeing unexpected conflicts. When this happens, it just means that I prefer Michael to go first. Patches are in linux-next anyway, and it's not rare at all that I send two KVM pull request per merge window. And I'll keep reporting conflicts if they happen so that Linus can keep an eye on what's going on. If things don't improve, and I'd hope they do based on Ben's message, we can have more work go through Michael, but that would be a last resort. Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
