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

Christoffer Dall
2013-11-11T18:39:25Z

On 11 November 2013 09:56, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> Il 11/11/2013 16:49, Christoffer Dall ha scritto:
>> I don't think it would have made much sense - that patch was part of a
>> series that was touching mainly arch/arm/kvm/* and therefore I
>> included it in my pull. It would have been strange to have a
>> kvm-arm-next tree that included 75% of the functionality because Marc
>> happens to have another patch that touches arch/arm and arch/arm64 and
>> have two untestable trees until the merge window...
>
> Yes, I found the original series now at
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/274722/.
>
> BTW, why did the arm/arm64 patch move from patch 1 in Marc's post to
> patch 4 here?

hmm, probably I just goofed something up when exporting the mbox from
mutt - it made sense for me the psci part was the last one as well I
guess, but I can't say I applied my brain to the reordering.

> Also, the description says "this also requires a patch to
> kvmtool so the generated DT matches the expectations of the guest
> (posted separately)". Does this apply to QEMU as well? If so, can you
> please point me to the QEMU patch? How does this patch affect guest
> ABI, and is guest ABI not yet considered stable for KVM ARM?
>
> Sorry for the question storm. :)
>
>>>> There would still be the case where I carry those arm/arm64
>>>> patches but the arm64 changes conflict with those in Marc's tree, no?
>>>
>>> Yes, that can still happen. Conflicts are not bad, only inconsistencies
>>> are.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean and where we could be more consistent to make
>> life easier for you. You say it should always come from the same
>> person, but not necessary always from the same person?
>>
>> Note: I have no problem giving my ack to patches or follow any
>> procedure that makes it easier, but I thought these pull requests were
>> quite clean (albeit a bit late).
>
> 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.
>
Well, KVM/ARM was my thing originally, I was, and am, the maintainer
when it was merged into Linux, then Marc started doing a lot of work
on there, and he did the ARM64 port and then we ended up this way.

-Christoffer