From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758466Ab3BFV4p (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2013 16:56:45 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:37128 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758046Ab3BFV4o (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2013 16:56:44 -0500 Message-ID: <5112D13C.7030406@zytor.com> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:55:08 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Stephen Rothwell , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , Linus Torvalds , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Sasha Levin , Randy Dunlap , David Woodhouse , Michal Marek , tglx@linutronix.de, "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kvmtool tree (Was: Re: [patch] config: fix make kvmconfig) References: <1356564746.7010.56.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <50DB9FA5.6070704@infradead.org> <20130204184436.GA13256@gmail.com> <20130204191408.GA32081@kroah.com> <20130204191334.GB14837@gmail.com> <20130207080236.ae38366537cf3f13b9668606@canb.auug.org.au> <20130206214646.GA28135@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130206214646.GA28135@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/06/2013 01:46 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> Linus has said that he will not take the kvmtool tree in its >> current form, but would prefer that it be a separate project, >> so I should really drop it from linux-next (and ask the tip >> guys to remove it from their auto-latest branch). >> >> I have actually been meaning to get back to this, so, today I >> will drop the kvmtool tree and, Ingo, if you could (at your >> convenience i.e. when you are next rebasing it) remove it from >> tip/auto-latest, thanks. > > Pekka still intends to send it in the next merge window AFAIK, > and I use it for testing rather frequently so I'm not going to > remove it from my tree for the time being. > > Note that I never actually had any maintenance problems due to > it: it's orthogonal, and as long as you don't use it explicitly > (such as its 'make kvmconfig' feature - which is rather handy) > it never actually broke anything. > So why don't we let Linus either accept and reject it for the 3.9 merge, but it rejected, we drop it from linux-next until such time as Linus' objections have been addressed? -hpa