On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:57:32PM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote: > 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? > Right. Catalin should wait for kvm.git to be pulled by Linus next merge windows before sending his pull request then. -- 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
