On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:13:52PM +0100, Anup Patel wrote: > Hi Marc, > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Guys, > > > > The KVM/arm64 code is now, as it seems, in good enough shape to be > > merged. I've so far addressed all the comments, and it doesn't seem any > > worse then what is queued for its 32bit counterpart. > > > > For reference, it is sitting there: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git > > kvm-arm64/kvm > > > > What is not defined yet is the merge path: > > - It is touching some of the arm64 core code, so it would be better if > > it was merged through the arm64 tree > > - It is depending on some of the patches in the core KVM queue (the > > vgic/timer move to virt/kvm/arm/) > > - It is also depending on some of the patches that are in the KVM/ARM > > queue (parametrized timer interrupt, some MMU/MMIO fixes) > > > > So I can see two possibilities: > > - Either I can rely on a stable branch from both KVM and KVM/ARM trees > > on which I can base my tree for Catalin/Will to pull, > > - Or I ask Catalin to only pull the arm64 part *minus the Kconfig*, and > > only merge this last bit when the dependencies are satisfied in Linus' tree. > > > > What do you guys think? > > I had quick look at your kvm-arm64/kvm branch. I agree with the approach > of going through arm64 tree. > > FYI, latest tested branch on APM ARMv8 board is kvm-arm64/kvm-3.10-rc3 > branch. > > From my side, +1 for the second option that is "pull the arm64 part *minus > the Kconfig*, and ..." +1 as well for the second option. -- Catalin -- 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
