On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:03 AM WangYuli <wangyuli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Bibo and Huacai, > > > Ah... tell me you two aren't arguing, right? > > > Both of you are working towards the same goal—making the upstream > > code for the Loongarch architecture as clean and elegant as possible. > > If it's just a disagreement about how to handle this small patch, > > there's no need to make things complicated. > > > As a partner of yours and a community developer passionate about > > Loongson CPU, I'd much rather see you two working together > > harmoniously than complaining about each other's work. I have full > > confidence in Bibo's judgment on the direction of KVM for Loongarch, > > and I also believe that Huacai, as the Loongarch maintainer, has always > > been fulfilling his responsibilities. > > > You are both excellent Linux developers. That's all. Bibo has made lots of contributions on LoongArch/KVM, and he is more professional than me. I hope we can collaborate well in the future. For this patch itself, I've applied to loongarch-fixes, thanks. Huacai > > > To be specific about the controversy caused by this particular commit, > > I think the root cause is that the KVM documentation for Loongarch > > hasn't been upstreamed. In my opinion, the documentation seems > > ready to be upstreamed. If you're all busy with more important work, > > I can take the time to submit them and provide a Chinese translation. > > > If this is feasible, it would be better to merge this commit after that. > > > Best wishes, > > > -- > > WangYuli > >
