Re: [GIT PULL] KVM/arm64 updates for 6.2

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 12/5/22 16:58, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > - There is a lot of selftest conflicts with your own branch, see:
> > 
> >    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221201112432.4cb9ae42@canb.auug.org.au
> >    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221201113626.438f13c5@canb.auug.org.au
> >    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221201115741.7de32422@canb.auug.org.au
> >    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221201120939.3c19f004@canb.auug.org.au
> >    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221201131623.18ebc8d8@canb.auug.org.au
> > 
> >    for a rather exhaustive collection.
> 
> Yeah, I saw them in Stephen's messages but missed your reply.
> 
> In retrospect, at least Gavin's series for memslot_perf_test should have
> been applied by both of us with a topic branch, but there's so many
> conflicts all over the place that it's hard to single out one series.
> It just happens.

Alternatively, we could have a dedicated selftests/kvm tree (or branch)?

I almost suggested doing that on multiple occasions this cycle, but ultimately
decided not to because it would effectively mean splitting series that touch KVM
and selftests into different trees, which would create a different kind of
dependency hell.  Or maybe a hybrid approach where series that only (or mostly?)
touch selftests go into a dedicated tree?

I get the feeling that I'm overthinking things though, this level of activity and
conflicts should be relatively rare.