Getting the kvm-riscv tree in next

Getting the kvm-riscv tree in next

[Oliver Upton]

Hi Anup,

I was recently poking around on linux-next and noticed that kvm-riscv
isn't included in it.

Having all of the KVM ports represented in -next is quite beneficial, as
it gives us an early signal to any conflicts that may arise between our
trees. Additionally, Linus likes to see that patches have been sitting
in -next for a while, and is generally suspicious of any content applied
immediately before the merge window. I've also noticed that for the past
few kernel release cycles you've used an extremely late rc (i.e. -rc7 or
-rc8), which I fear only draws more scrutiny.

So, in the interest of greasing the wheels of KVM maintenance, could you
consider doing the following:

 - Apply patches well in advance of the upcoming merge window on an
   early -rc. At least for KVM/arm64 we tend to base things on -rc3,
   allowing for a few weeks of soak time in -next.

 - Ask Stephen to include your tree in linux-next.

As I said, I just care about reducing friction in KVM, so hopefully this
doesn't come off as though I'm policing your tree.

-- 
Thanks,
Oliver

Re: Getting the kvm-riscv tree in next

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 4/21/23 21:10, Oliver Upton wrote:
> I've also noticed that for the past few kernel release cycles you've
> used an extremely late rc (i.e. -rc7 or -rc8), which I fear only
> draws more scrutiny.

Heh, I just wrote the same thing to Anup.  In particular, having 
kvm-riscv in next (either directly or by sending early pull requests to 
me) would have helped me understand the conflicts between the core and 
KVM trees for RISC-V, because Stephen Rothwell would have alerted me 
about them.

Paolo

Re: Getting the kvm-riscv tree in next

[Sean Christopherson]

On Sat, Apr 22, 2023, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 4/21/23 21:10, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > I've also noticed that for the past few kernel release cycles you've
> > used an extremely late rc (i.e. -rc7 or -rc8), which I fear only
> > draws more scrutiny.
> 
> Heh, I just wrote the same thing to Anup.  In particular, having kvm-riscv
> in next (either directly or by sending early pull requests to me) would have
> helped me understand the conflicts between the core and KVM trees for
> RISC-V, because Stephen Rothwell would have alerted me about them.

Speaking of not-early pull requests, I'm not going to get the x86 pull requests
sent until Monday.  Everything has been in place for a few weeks now, but I buried
myself too deep in UPM/restrictedmem stuff and ran out of time today (and I don't
trust my brain to not make stupid mistakes at this point).

Re: Getting the kvm-riscv tree in next

[Anup Patel]

On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 5:18 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/21/23 21:10, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > I've also noticed that for the past few kernel release cycles you've
> > used an extremely late rc (i.e. -rc7 or -rc8), which I fear only
> > draws more scrutiny.
>
> Heh, I just wrote the same thing to Anup.  In particular, having
> kvm-riscv in next (either directly or by sending early pull requests to
> me) would have helped me understand the conflicts between the core and
> KVM trees for RISC-V, because Stephen Rothwell would have alerted me
> about them.

I think it is better to have patches sit in linux-next for at least a week
before sending pull requests. I will request Stephen to include KVM
RISC-V tree in linux-next.

Thanks,
Anup

>
> Paolo
>