Re: Planning the merge of KVM/arm64

Christoffer Dall
2013-06-05T05:57:33Z

On 4 June 2013 09:37, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
Yes, that was the idea. Everything in kvm/next is considered stable, right?

-Christoffer