On 4 June 2013 09:37, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? > Yes, that was the idea. Everything in kvm/next is considered stable, right? -Christoffer -- 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
