Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm/arm64: KVM: MMIO support for BE guest

[Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 07:41:30PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 11/11/2013 19:26, Marc Zyngier ha scritto:
> >> > The pull requests were clean and my life wasn't complicated much...  On
> >> > the other hand I'm trying to understand if there's something that can be
> >> > improved because the conflict surprised me.  Right now, in fact, it's
> >> > not even entirely clear to me why ARM and ARM64 have separate maintainers.
> > Mostly because arm64 was developed and merged before any kind of useful
> > documentation was publicly available. As I've written most of the code,
> > it was only logical that I'd assume responsibility for it.
> 
> That was my understanding as well.
> 
> > Christoffer and I are actually working quite well together, and I don't
> > think there is much to improve, short of sharing a common git tree. And
> > to be perfectly clear, I wouldn't mind if we were written down as
> > co-maintainers for both ports...
> 
> Then go for it. :)  Send a patch to MAINTAINERS, get an Acked-by from
> Christoffer and I'll apply it.
> 
> Gleb and I share the git tree and hand it off "formally" by email every
> 1 or 2 weeks to the other person.  After the email is sent, the sender
> should no longer push to the shared tree.  This however is by no means
> the only way to proceed, having separate trees and sending separate pull
> requests works well too.  I would not mind the occasional conflict, and
> I'd be hardly surprised.

I'd cast my vote (if I have one) towards the sharing a tree method. For
those of us scrambling to get caught up with kvmarm, a reduction in the
number of trees and branches we need to track would be a welcome change.

drew