Hi Anup, I was recently poking around on linux-next and noticed that kvm-riscv isn't included in it. Having all of the KVM ports represented in -next is quite beneficial, as it gives us an early signal to any conflicts that may arise between our trees. Additionally, Linus likes to see that patches have been sitting in -next for a while, and is generally suspicious of any content applied immediately before the merge window. I've also noticed that for the past few kernel release cycles you've used an extremely late rc (i.e. -rc7 or -rc8), which I fear only draws more scrutiny. So, in the interest of greasing the wheels of KVM maintenance, could you consider doing the following: - Apply patches well in advance of the upcoming merge window on an early -rc. At least for KVM/arm64 we tend to base things on -rc3, allowing for a few weeks of soak time in -next. - Ask Stephen to include your tree in linux-next. As I said, I just care about reducing friction in KVM, so hopefully this doesn't come off as though I'm policing your tree. -- Thanks, Oliver
