From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: Planning the merge of KVM/arm64 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:51:41 +0200 Message-ID: <51AE0D0D.3030106@redhat.com> References: <51ADDDAE.4040705@arm.com> <51AE00D7.9030607@arm.com> <51AE082C.6050907@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marc Zyngier , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Christoffer Dall , Gleb Natapov , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" To: Christoffer Dall Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:19104 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753705Ab3FDPwf (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:52:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. Paolo