On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:31:46AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:01:05AM +0100, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > 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. > > I think it's better if I push the bulk of the arm64 KVM branch but > without Kconfig patch enabling it. This branch would be based on > mainline rather than kvm/next. Once your code goes in mainline, I'll > just push the Kconfig entry (for bisection reasons, it could be after > -rc1). This would keep the pull-request diffstat cleaner. > If there will be no non trivial conflicts between your tree and kvm/next it should be OK too. > As we discussed some time ago, after the core arm64 KVM is merged you > will use the same workflow as for arm (merge via the kvm tree). > > Thanks. > > -- > Catalin -- 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
