From: "Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
To: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com>,
Asias He <asias.hejun@gmail.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
Ronald Minnich <rminnich@google.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>,
"kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: stand-alone kvmtool
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:02:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mw41aqbc.fsf@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54EAFCE9.5030000@arm.com>
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> writes:
> Hi Will,
>
> On 18/02/15 15:50, Will Deacon wrote:
>> Hi Andre,
>>
>> Thanks for doing this. Since it looks unlikely that kvmtool will ever be
>> merged back into the kernel tree, it makes sense to cut the dependency
>> in my opinion.
>>
<snip>
>
> P.S. Although both approaches still provide the kvmtool patch history,
> they do not compile before the dependency cut patches. If that is an
> issue, one could think about injecting those new patches back into the
> repository time line. Admittedly that sounds scary, but would solve the
> problem.
If you can have it all it would be nice to preserve buildability all
through your history for bisecting (and the moon on a stick please ;-)
Is the dependency on the kernel sources something that has been stable
over the projects history or something that's been declining/increasing
over time?
--
Alex Bennée
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: alex.bennee@linaro.org (Alex Bennée)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: stand-alone kvmtool
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:02:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mw41aqbc.fsf@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54EAFCE9.5030000@arm.com>
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> writes:
> Hi Will,
>
> On 18/02/15 15:50, Will Deacon wrote:
>> Hi Andre,
>>
>> Thanks for doing this. Since it looks unlikely that kvmtool will ever be
>> merged back into the kernel tree, it makes sense to cut the dependency
>> in my opinion.
>>
<snip>
>
> P.S. Although both approaches still provide the kvmtool patch history,
> they do not compile before the dependency cut patches. If that is an
> issue, one could think about injecting those new patches back into the
> repository time line. Admittedly that sounds scary, but would solve the
> problem.
If you can have it all it would be nice to preserve buildability all
through your history for bisecting (and the moon on a stick please ;-)
Is the dependency on the kernel sources something that has been stable
over the projects history or something that's been declining/increasing
over time?
--
Alex Benn?e
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
To: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
"kvm\@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com>,
Asias He <asias.hejun@gmail.com>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
Ronald Minnich <rminnich@google.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>,
"kvmarm\@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
"linux-arm-kernel\@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: stand-alone kvmtool
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:02:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mw41aqbc.fsf@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54EAFCE9.5030000@arm.com>
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> writes:
> Hi Will,
>
> On 18/02/15 15:50, Will Deacon wrote:
>> Hi Andre,
>>
>> Thanks for doing this. Since it looks unlikely that kvmtool will ever be
>> merged back into the kernel tree, it makes sense to cut the dependency
>> in my opinion.
>>
<snip>
>
> P.S. Although both approaches still provide the kvmtool patch history,
> they do not compile before the dependency cut patches. If that is an
> issue, one could think about injecting those new patches back into the
> repository time line. Admittedly that sounds scary, but would solve the
> problem.
If you can have it all it would be nice to preserve buildability all
through your history for bisecting (and the moon on a stick please ;-)
Is the dependency on the kernel sources something that has been stable
over the projects history or something that's been declining/increasing
over time?
--
Alex Bennée
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-26 10:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-13 10:39 stand-alone kvmtool Andre Przywara
2015-02-13 10:39 ` Andre Przywara
2015-02-13 14:30 ` Claudio Fontana
2015-02-13 14:30 ` Claudio Fontana
2015-02-13 14:40 ` Andre Przywara
2015-02-13 14:40 ` Andre Przywara
2015-02-13 16:36 ` Claudio Fontana
2015-02-13 16:36 ` Claudio Fontana
2015-02-18 15:50 ` Will Deacon
2015-02-18 15:50 ` Will Deacon
2015-02-23 10:11 ` Andre Przywara
2015-02-23 10:11 ` Andre Przywara
2015-02-23 10:11 ` Andre Przywara
2015-02-26 11:02 ` Alex Bennée [this message]
2015-02-26 11:02 ` Alex Bennée
2015-02-26 11:02 ` Alex Bennée
2015-03-01 10:21 ` Pekka Enberg
2015-03-01 10:21 ` Pekka Enberg
2015-03-01 10:21 ` Pekka Enberg
2015-02-23 17:23 ` Pekka Enberg
2015-02-23 17:23 ` Pekka Enberg
2015-02-23 17:23 ` Pekka Enberg
2015-02-25 12:16 ` Will Deacon
2015-02-25 12:16 ` Will Deacon
2015-06-03 17:04 ` Will Deacon
2015-06-03 17:04 ` Will Deacon
2015-06-03 17:07 ` Ronald Minnich
2015-02-19 10:56 ` Sasha Levin
2015-02-19 10:56 ` Sasha Levin
2015-02-19 10:56 ` Sasha Levin
2015-02-23 11:12 ` Andre Przywara
2015-02-23 11:12 ` Andre Przywara
2015-02-23 11:12 ` Andre Przywara
2015-02-23 12:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-23 12:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-23 12:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-23 14:27 ` Christoffer Dall
2015-02-23 14:27 ` Christoffer Dall
2015-02-23 16:35 ` Ronald Minnich
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=87mw41aqbc.fsf@linaro.org \
--to=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=Marc.Zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=andre.przywara@arm.com \
--cc=asias.hejun@gmail.com \
--cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rminnich@google.com \
--cc=sasha.levin@oracle.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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.