From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm/arm64: KVM: MMIO support for BE guest Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:41:58 +0100 Message-ID: <20131112094157.GA2377@hawk.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1383905236-32741-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <1383905236-32741-3-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <5280B9CC.6020502@redhat.com> <5280F36B.5040501@redhat.com> <52811A3C.2050101@redhat.com> <52812156.9060703@arm.com> <528124DA.5030303@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Marc Zyngier , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" To: Paolo Bonzini Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:61160 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753735Ab3KLJmS (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2013 04:42:18 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <528124DA.5030303@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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