On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 03:53:33PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Sure, those patches are still in flight though. It does seem reasonable > > to target the current code. > Sure, if your intent is for this code not to be merged. > Because it means this series assumes a different data life cycle, and > the review effort spent on it will be invalidated once you move to the > per-CPU state. I don't have any visibility on when those patches are likely to get merged or the general practices with in flight serieses here, last time around with some of the serieses that were in flight it was quite late which did make it unclear if things would go in during that release cycle at all. The amount of churn in KVM recently and long periods where the relevant patches are apparently pre accepted but for various not always clear reasons not actually merged is making it quite hard to target, you're obviously going to be a lot more in the loop so this is doubtless clearer to you than to me. It's also been a little unclear what the expectations are for basing things on - some people do prefer to do their own merging for example, and while you have mentioned your in flight serieses your communication style means that it's not been entirely clear if you're just noting the overlap. Is it just that refactoring series you want taking into account here or are there other in flight serieses that should be rolled into a base?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
