From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/19] libfdt: Import libfdt source Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:39:12 +0200 Message-ID: <5399BB90.1010305@redhat.com> References: <1402495294-30737-1-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com> <1402495294-30737-7-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com> <5399848E.3000908@redhat.com> <20140612105914.GC6646@dhcp-27-201.brq.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org, christoffer.dall@linaro.org To: Andrew Jones Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36650 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752898AbaFLOjT (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:39:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140612105914.GC6646@dhcp-27-201.brq.redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Il 12/06/2014 12:59, Andrew Jones ha scritto: >> > >> > Would it make sense to use a submodule instead? > I considered that, but since we'll probably never need to update > libfdt, it seemed like it'd just be an additional step for > kvm-unit-test developers and users. I have no strong preference > though. If you'd rather we submodule it, then I can spin up those > patches for a v6. A submodule improves the tracking of patches on top of upstream... I guess it's not a big deal though, it's unlikely that we will update it as you said. Paolo