From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm/arm64: KVM: MMIO support for BE guest Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:41:30 +0100 Message-ID: <528124DA.5030303@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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Christoffer Dall , Gleb Natapov , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , Peter Maydell To: Marc Zyngier Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27226 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753821Ab3KKSlr (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:41:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: <52812156.9060703@arm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. Thanks, Paolo