From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Capper Subject: Re: Planning the merge of KVM/arm64 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:48:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20130604154831.GA20199@linaro.org> References: <51ADDDAE.4040705@arm.com> <51AE00D7.9030607@arm.com> <51AE082C.6050907@redhat.com> <20130604154023.GS27516@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Christoffer Dall , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , Gleb Natapov , steve.capper@arm.com, Marc Zyngier , Catalin Marinas , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , Christoffer Dall To: Will Deacon Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]:45954 "EHLO mail-wg0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753169Ab3FDPsl (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:48:41 -0400 Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id k13so378055wgh.5 for ; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:48:39 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130604154023.GS27516@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:40:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:30:52PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > Il 04/06/2013 16:59, Marc Zyngier ha scritto: > > >>> >> - Either I can rely on a stable branch from both KVM and KVM/ARM trees > > >>> >> on which I can base my tree for Catalin/Will to pull, > > >>> >> - Or I ask Catalin to only pull the arm64 part *minus the Kconfig*, and > > >>> >> only merge this last bit when the dependencies are satisfied in Linus' tree. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> What do you guys think? > > >>> >> > > >> > I would think you would prefer option (1) to get the code in cleaner. > > >> > Both the KVM/next tree is stable and I can provide you with a stable > > >> > KVM/ARM tree. But I really don't feel strongly about this. > > > That'd be my preferred choice too. Let's see what the KVM maintainers' > > > position on that. > > > > I wonder if Linus would complain about irrelevant KVM changes in > > Will/Catalin's pull request. The KVM/next tree has other patches below > > the ones you need. > > > > What we usually do for x86 is get an Acked-by from the other part. If > > there are no dependencies on other aarch64 core changes, it'd be better > > to go through the KVM tree. Otherwise separating the Kconfig change > > should be okay (perhaps add it with depends on BROKEN, and remove the > > dependency later?). > > Well you can certainly have my ack for the series but, as you say, it > depends whether there are further dependencies on patches queued for aarch64 > core. For 3.11, conflicts with Steve's (CC'd) hugetlb stuff are likely. > > Acked-by: Will Deacon > > Will > I'd be happy to rebase/test the aarch64 huge page code against a branch if that's helpful? Cheers, -- Steve