On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 05:51:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 04/06/2013 17:43, Christoffer Dall ha scritto: > > Hi Paolo, > > > > I don't think this is an issue. Gleb and Marcelo for example pulled > > RMK's stable tree for my KVM/ARM updates for the 3.10 merge window and > > that wasn't an issue. If Linus pulls the kvm/next tree first the > > diffstat should be similar and everything clean enough, no? > > > > Catalin has previously expressed his wish to upstream the kvm/arm64 > > patches directly through him given the churn in a completely new > > architecture and he wants to make sure that everything looks right. > > > > It's a pretty clean implementation with quite few dependencies and > > merging as a working series should be a priority instead of the > > Kconfig hack, imho. > > Ok, let's see what Gleb says. > I have no objection to merge arm64 kvm trough Catalin if it mean less churn for everyone. That's what we did with arm and mips. Arm64 kvm has a dependency on kvm.git next though, so how Catalin make sure that everything looks right? Will he merge kvm.git/next to arm64 tree? -- Gleb. -- 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
