On 04/06/13 15:50, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On 4 June 2013 05:29, 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. >> > > huh? That was supposed to be a joke. Obviously, my sense of humour has failed to impress you here. I'll improve on that in another version of the same email... ;-) >> 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 would think you would prefer option (1) to get the code in cleaner. > Both the KVM/next tree is stable and I can provide you with a stable > KVM/ARM tree. But I really don't feel strongly about this. That'd be my preferred choice too. Let's see what the KVM maintainers' position on that. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- 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
