On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:48:06 -0800 Zachary Amsden <zach at vmware.com> wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > It'd be better to develop and test this work on top of Thomas's stuff, as > > that's what 2.6.20 will doubtless look like. That means working against > > -mm. Once Thomas's patches are in mainline then the patches will apply to > > Andi's tree too and I can send them over to him. > > > > That way, the patch-applying-order equals mainstream-merging-order equals > > chronological-writing-order, which is generally a good thing. > > > > Sounds sane. Are Thomas's patches in -rc5-mm1? Yes. That patch series was today dropped and remerged, but it won't have changed much at all. > If so, we should rebase > paravirt-ops, although I don't want to lose any paravirt patches that > you've dropped because they were merged to Andi. Anything that's in Andi's tree is in -mm too, so when patches are moved mm->andi->mainline nothing will change from your POV. > Don't know if that is > the case, but I did see a bunch of "merged into a subsystem tree" drops > from -mm related to paravirt. Some of them went mm->andi, others were folded into others and remain in -mm, but the net effect is unaltered from your POV.
