Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm/arm64: KVM: MMIO support for BE guest

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11 November 2013 09:56, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Il 11/11/2013 16:49, Christoffer Dall ha scritto:
>> I don't think it would have made much sense - that patch was part of a
>> series that was touching mainly arch/arm/kvm/* and therefore I
>> included it in my pull.  It would have been strange to have a
>> kvm-arm-next tree that included 75% of the functionality because Marc
>> happens to have another patch that touches arch/arm and arch/arm64 and
>> have two untestable trees until the merge window...
>
> Yes, I found the original series now at
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/274722/.
>
> BTW, why did the arm/arm64 patch move from patch 1 in Marc's post to
> patch 4 here?

hmm, probably I just goofed something up when exporting the mbox from
mutt - it made sense for me the psci part was the last one as well I
guess, but I can't say I applied my brain to the reordering.

> Also, the description says "this also requires a patch to
> kvmtool so the generated DT matches the expectations of the guest
> (posted separately)".  Does this apply to QEMU as well?  If so, can you
> please point me to the QEMU patch?  How does this patch affect guest
> ABI, and is guest ABI not yet considered stable for KVM ARM?
>
> Sorry for the question storm. :)
>
>>>> There would still be the case where I carry those arm/arm64
>>>> patches but the arm64 changes conflict with those in Marc's tree, no?
>>>
>>> Yes, that can still happen.  Conflicts are not bad, only inconsistencies
>>> are.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean and where we could be more consistent to make
>> life easier for you.  You say it should always come from the same
>> person, but not necessary always from the same person?
>>
>> Note: I have no problem giving my ack to patches or follow any
>> procedure that makes it easier, but I thought these pull requests were
>> quite clean (albeit a bit late).
>
> The pull requests were clean and my life wasn't complicated much...  On
> the other hand I'm trying to understand if there's something that can be
> improved because the conflict surprised me.  Right now, in fact, it's
> not even entirely clear to me why ARM and ARM64 have separate maintainers.
>
Well, KVM/ARM was my thing originally, I was, and am, the maintainer
when it was merged into Linux, then Marc started doing a lot of work
on there, and he did the ARM64 port and then we ended up this way.

-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




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux