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

Christoffer Dall
2013-11-12T16:30:56Z

On 12 November 2013 02:07, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> Il 12/11/2013 11:03, Marc Zyngier ha scritto:
>>> >
>>> > 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.
>> Not sure what the benefit would be. We'd go from two trees with
>> respectively x and y branches, to a single tree with x+y branches.
>>
>> Christoffer and I tend to work on separate topics, we track what the
>> other does, and we make sure we don't overlap. And if we do, we shove
>> the related patches in the same branch. Overall, whether or not we
>> switch to co-maintainership, I don't expect our workflow to change much.
>
> Yes, I think your workflow is fine as is.
>
> Andrew, with two co-maintainers Christoffer and Marc would probably send
> more frequent pull requests. You're probably better off sending them
> patches based on kvm/next directly.
>
Or just ask us if you're working on a feature, and you want to know
where to get the latest sources or what to send pull requests against.

Usually, if it's 32-bit stuff, it's against kvm-arm-next in my tree,
which is equivalent to kvm/next workflow wise.

-Christoffer