On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 01:31:40PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:35:33AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Robin, Andrew: > > As a heads-up, Robin is currently on holiday, so this is all down to > Andrew's preference. > > > I have a series for the hmm tree, which touches the section size > > bits, and remove device public memory support. > > > > It might be best if we include this series in the hmm tree as well > > to avoid conflicts. Is it ok to include the rebase version of at least > > the cleanup part (which looks like it is not required for the actual > > arm64 support) in the hmm tree to avoid conflicts? > > Per the cover letter, the arm64 patch has a build dependency on the > others, so that might require a stable brnach for the common prefix. I guess we'll just have to live with the merge errors then, as the mm tree is a patch series and thus can't easily use a stable base tree. That is unlike Andrew wants to pull in the hmm tree as a prep patch for the series.
