From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Christopherson Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2021 01:21:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5.5 00/30] KVM: Scalable memslots implementation Message-Id: List-Id: References: <20211104002531.1176691-1-seanjc@google.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" Cc: Anup Patel , Wanpeng Li , kvm@vger.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , Atish Patra , Ben Gardon , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Claudio Imbrenda , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Janosch Frank , Marc Zyngier , Joerg Roedel , Huacai Chen , Christian Borntraeger , Aleksandar Markovic , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, Paul Walmsley , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Jim Mattson , Cornelia Huck , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Paolo Bonzini , Vitaly Kuznetsov On Tue, Nov 09, 2021, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: > On 04.11.2021 01:25, Sean Christopherson wrote: > By the way, do you want your patches and my non-invasive patches (patches > below number 23) merged without waiting for the rest of the series to be > fully ready? > > This way there is less risk of conflicting changes to KVM being merged > in meantime while we are still discussing the remaining patches. > Or worse - changes that don't conflict but subtly break some assumptions > that the code relies on. > > For this reason I am strongly for merging them independently from the > more invasive parts. Merging them as soon as they're ready would also be my preference. That said, I'm hoping we can get the entire implemenation queued up for 5.17 sooner than later. I'll do my best to respond quickly to try and make that happen.