On Fri, Feb 03, 2023, Vipin Sharma wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 10:59 AM Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 10:51 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2023, Vipin Sharma wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 3:24 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > I love the cleanup, but in the future, please don't squeeze KVM-wide changes in > > > > > the middle of an otherwise arch-specific series unless it's absolutely necessary. > > > > > I get why you added the macro before copy-pasting more code into a new test, but > > > > > the unfortunate side effect is that complicates grabbing the entire series. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make sense. So what is preferable: > > > > 1. Make the big cleanup identified during a series as the last patches > > > > in that series? > > > > 2. Have two series and big cleanups rebased on top of the initial series? > > > > > > > > Or, both 1 & 2 are acceptable depending on the cleanup? > > > > > > 3. Post the cleanup independently, but make a note so that maintainers know > > > that there may be conflicts and/or missed cleanup opportunities. > > > > Small question: > Will it be fine if I use the current kvm/queue head or do you prefer > if I take one of your kvm-x86/linux branches? Use kvm/queue, fixing up conflicts and converting stragglers should be easy enough.
