On 04/02/2012 12:02 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 15:38 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 03/30/2012 03:01 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > > I just noticed that the branch you asked Linus to pull includes none > > > of the patches that Alex sent you in the last batch, in the email with > > > subject "[PULL 00/56] ppc patch queue 2012-03-15" sent on March 15, > > > where he asked you to pull git://github.com/agraf/linux-2.6.git > > > for-upstream. > > > > > > What happened? Did they get lost in the re-signing, or is there some > > > reason you thought they shouldn't go in? > > > > That pull request was send three days before the merge window opened; > > patches are supposed to cook for a while in -next before being merged, > > especially large trees like that one. > > These are all powerpc specific patches that have been cooking in Alex > tree for a while and elsewhere before that. They almost only affect > arch/powerpc/kvm, and as such don't really need a lot of integration > testing in -next. A bit for sure but not necessarily monthes. > > The current process is such that it takes absolutely forever for our > patches to get in, which is a major PITA for something in such state of > active development. If the patches were posted two weeks earlier, they would have gone in. > Why don't we have Alex tree go straight to -next like I do with Kumar > for example ? That way I don't need to have his branch sit in my tree > for weeks before I push it out to Linus. There isn't a lot of common kvm code, but what there is needs to be synchronized. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
