Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] KVM/ARM Implementation

Christoffer Dall
2013-01-14T22:31:58Z

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Christoffer,
>
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 06:38:34PM +0000, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> The following series implements KVM support for ARM processors,
>> specifically on the Cortex-A15 platform.
>
> [...]
>
> This is looking pretty good to me now and I feel that the longer it stays
> out-of-tree, the more issues will creep in (without continual effort from
> yourself and others). I've sent some minor comments (mainly vgic-related)
> so, if you fix those, then you can add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>
> for the series.

A big thanks!

>
> Now, there's a lot of code here and merging isn't completely
> straightforward. I propose:
>
> * The first series should go via Russell's tree. It depends on my
> perf branch for the CPU type stuff, but that should go in for 3.9
> anyway (also via Russell).
>

Great.

> * The vGIC patches need rebasing on top of Rob Herring's work, which
> he sent a pull for over the weekend:
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-January/141488.html
>
> In light of that, this stuff will need to go via arm-soc.
>
> * The hyp arch-timers are in a similar situation to the vGIC: Mark Rutland
> is moving those into drivers:
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-January/140560.html
>
> so the kvm bits will need rebasing appropriately and also sent to
> arm-soc (Mark -- I assume you intend to send a PULL for 3.9 for those
> patches?)
>
> Obviously this is all open for discussion, but that seems like the easiest
> option to me.
>
Makes good sense. Given that there are no other major disputes over
the code we are a couple of people strongly hoping that this can
happen for 3.9.

In any case, I'll do whatever makes the process the easiest for you guys.

Best,
-Christoffer