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: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:07:37 +0100 Message-ID: <5281FDE9.4070106@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> <528124DA.5030303@redhat.com> <20131112094157.GA2377@hawk.usersys.redhat.com> <5281FD0A.7020703@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Jones , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" To: Marc Zyngier Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57587 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752466Ab3KLKHw (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2013 05:07:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: <5281FD0A.7020703@arm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. Paolo