I don't think the numbered patch scheme we're using in the paravirtops
patch series is going to work very well. It assumes that we've got the
patch order of all the existing patches right, and that we don't need to
fit in any new patches between them. I think we'll need the flexibility
of rearranging/grouping patches to make them most suited for submission,
but if the patch names contain their (original) order encoded into their
names, it will just be a confusing mess.
We could rename the existing patches, but since they're probably going
to go upstream pretty quickly it doesn't matter all that much. But for
future patches, I think we should just give them meaningful names, and
use the series file to control the order.
Comments?
Also, I'm assuming that virtualization at osdl is the best place to get all
these low-level paravirtops messages public, so we save lkml from
basically admin-noise. We should cc:lkml for any substantial technical
discussion, of course.
J
