On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:40:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:30:52PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > Il 04/06/2013 16:59, Marc Zyngier ha scritto: > > >>> >> - 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. > > > > I wonder if Linus would complain about irrelevant KVM changes in > > Will/Catalin's pull request. The KVM/next tree has other patches below > > the ones you need. > > > > What we usually do for x86 is get an Acked-by from the other part. If > > there are no dependencies on other aarch64 core changes, it'd be better > > to go through the KVM tree. Otherwise separating the Kconfig change > > should be okay (perhaps add it with depends on BROKEN, and remove the > > dependency later?). > > Well you can certainly have my ack for the series but, as you say, it > depends whether there are further dependencies on patches queued for aarch64 > core. For 3.11, conflicts with Steve's (CC'd) hugetlb stuff are likely. > > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> > > Will > I'd be happy to rebase/test the aarch64 huge page code against a branch if that's helpful? Cheers, -- Steve -- 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
