On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 09:16:42AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 01, 2024, Oliver Upton wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 08:59:16AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > Can you instead just push out a topic branch and let the affected > > > > maintainers deal with it? This is the usual way we handle conflicts > > > > between trees... > > > > > > That'd work too, but as you note below, doing that now throws a wrench in things > > > because essentially all arch maintainers would need merge that topic branch, > > > otherwise linux-next would end up in the same state. > > > > TBH, I'm quite happy with that. Recent history has not been particularly > > convinincing to me that folks are actually testing arm64, let alone > > compiling for it when applying selftests patches. > > FWIW, I did compile all patches on all KVM architectures, including selftests. > But my base obviously didn't include the kvm-arm64 branch :-/ Oh, that rip wasn't aimed at you, commit 76f972c2cfdf ("KVM: selftests: Fix build on architectures other than x86_64") just came to mind. > One thing I'll add to my workflow would be to do a local merge (and smoke test) > of linux-next into kvm-x86 next before pushing it out. This isn't the only snafu > this cycle where such a sanity check would have saved me and others a bit of pain. Eh, shit happens, that's what -next is for :) The only point I wanted to make was that it is perfectly fine by me to spread the workload w/ a topic branch if things blow up sometime after your changes show up in -next. -- Thanks, Oliver