From: gleb@redhat.com (Gleb Natapov)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Planning the merge of KVM/arm64
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 09:01:05 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130605060105.GA1187@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMJs5B8WqiMpqj3Mr=rPCr89k-jvY2i3BDbkPOsMb3PhCR1SWg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:57:32PM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On 4 June 2013 09:37, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 05:51:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 04/06/2013 17:43, Christoffer Dall ha scritto:
> >> > Hi Paolo,
> >> >
> >> > I don't think this is an issue. Gleb and Marcelo for example pulled
> >> > RMK's stable tree for my KVM/ARM updates for the 3.10 merge window and
> >> > that wasn't an issue. If Linus pulls the kvm/next tree first the
> >> > diffstat should be similar and everything clean enough, no?
> >> >
> >> > Catalin has previously expressed his wish to upstream the kvm/arm64
> >> > patches directly through him given the churn in a completely new
> >> > architecture and he wants to make sure that everything looks right.
> >> >
> >> > It's a pretty clean implementation with quite few dependencies and
> >> > merging as a working series should be a priority instead of the
> >> > Kconfig hack, imho.
> >>
> >> Ok, let's see what Gleb says.
> >>
> > I have no objection to merge arm64 kvm trough Catalin if it mean less
> > churn for everyone. That's what we did with arm and mips. Arm64 kvm
> > has a dependency on kvm.git next though, so how Catalin make sure that
> > everything looks right? Will he merge kvm.git/next to arm64 tree?
> >
> Yes, that was the idea. Everything in kvm/next is considered stable, right?
>
Right. Catalin should wait for kvm.git to be pulled by Linus next merge
windows before sending his pull request then.
--
Gleb.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
To: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
Christoffer Dall <c.dall@virtualopensystems.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Planning the merge of KVM/arm64
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 09:01:05 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130605060105.GA1187@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMJs5B8WqiMpqj3Mr=rPCr89k-jvY2i3BDbkPOsMb3PhCR1SWg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:57:32PM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On 4 June 2013 09:37, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 05:51:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 04/06/2013 17:43, Christoffer Dall ha scritto:
> >> > Hi Paolo,
> >> >
> >> > I don't think this is an issue. Gleb and Marcelo for example pulled
> >> > RMK's stable tree for my KVM/ARM updates for the 3.10 merge window and
> >> > that wasn't an issue. If Linus pulls the kvm/next tree first the
> >> > diffstat should be similar and everything clean enough, no?
> >> >
> >> > Catalin has previously expressed his wish to upstream the kvm/arm64
> >> > patches directly through him given the churn in a completely new
> >> > architecture and he wants to make sure that everything looks right.
> >> >
> >> > It's a pretty clean implementation with quite few dependencies and
> >> > merging as a working series should be a priority instead of the
> >> > Kconfig hack, imho.
> >>
> >> Ok, let's see what Gleb says.
> >>
> > I have no objection to merge arm64 kvm trough Catalin if it mean less
> > churn for everyone. That's what we did with arm and mips. Arm64 kvm
> > has a dependency on kvm.git next though, so how Catalin make sure that
> > everything looks right? Will he merge kvm.git/next to arm64 tree?
> >
> Yes, that was the idea. Everything in kvm/next is considered stable, right?
>
Right. Catalin should wait for kvm.git to be pulled by Linus next merge
windows before sending his pull request then.
--
Gleb.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-05 6:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-04 12:29 Planning the merge of KVM/arm64 Marc Zyngier
2013-06-04 12:29 ` Marc Zyngier
2013-06-04 13:13 ` Anup Patel
2013-06-04 13:13 ` Anup Patel
2013-06-04 13:19 ` Marc Zyngier
2013-06-04 13:19 ` Marc Zyngier
2013-06-04 13:41 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-06-04 13:41 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-06-04 14:50 ` Christoffer Dall
2013-06-04 14:50 ` Christoffer Dall
2013-06-04 14:59 ` Marc Zyngier
2013-06-04 14:59 ` Marc Zyngier
2013-06-04 15:30 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-06-04 15:30 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-06-04 15:40 ` Will Deacon
2013-06-04 15:40 ` Will Deacon
2013-06-04 15:48 ` Steve Capper
2013-06-04 15:48 ` Steve Capper
2013-06-04 15:42 ` Marc Zyngier
2013-06-04 15:42 ` Marc Zyngier
2013-06-04 15:43 ` Christoffer Dall
2013-06-04 15:43 ` Christoffer Dall
2013-06-04 15:51 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-06-04 15:51 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-06-04 16:37 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-06-04 16:37 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-06-05 5:57 ` Christoffer Dall
2013-06-05 5:57 ` Christoffer Dall
2013-06-05 6:01 ` Gleb Natapov [this message]
2013-06-05 6:01 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-06-05 9:31 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-06-05 9:31 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-06-05 12:57 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-06-05 12:57 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-06-05 13:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2013-06-05 13:13 ` Marc Zyngier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130605060105.GA1187@redhat.com \
--to=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.