From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: Planning the merge of KVM/arm64 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:37:41 +0300 Message-ID: <20130604163741.GA15299@redhat.com> References: <51ADDDAE.4040705@arm.com> <51AE00D7.9030607@arm.com> <51AE082C.6050907@redhat.com> <51AE0D0D.3030106@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoffer Dall , Marc Zyngier , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Christoffer Dall , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" To: Paolo Bonzini Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:1741 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751802Ab3FDQiT (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:38:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51AE0D0D.3030106@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 05:51:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 04/06/2013 17:43, Christoffer Dall ha scritto: > > Hi Paolo, > > > > I don't think this is an issue. Gleb and Marcelo for example pulled > > RMK's stable tree for my KVM/ARM updates for the 3.10 merge window and > > that wasn't an issue. If Linus pulls the kvm/next tree first the > > diffstat should be similar and everything clean enough, no? > > > > Catalin has previously expressed his wish to upstream the kvm/arm64 > > patches directly through him given the churn in a completely new > > architecture and he wants to make sure that everything looks right. > > > > It's a pretty clean implementation with quite few dependencies and > > merging as a working series should be a priority instead of the > > Kconfig hack, imho. > > Ok, let's see what Gleb says. > I have no objection to merge arm64 kvm trough Catalin if it mean less churn for everyone. That's what we did with arm and mips. Arm64 kvm has a dependency on kvm.git next though, so how Catalin make sure that everything looks right? Will he merge kvm.git/next to arm64 tree? -- Gleb.