From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alex.bennee@linaro.org (Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?=) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:02:31 +0000 Subject: stand-alone kvmtool In-Reply-To: <54EAFCE9.5030000@arm.com> References: <54DDD465.3050300@arm.com> <20150218155042.GF22017@arm.com> <54EAFCE9.5030000@arm.com> Message-ID: <87mw41aqbc.fsf@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Andre Przywara writes: > Hi Will, > > On 18/02/15 15:50, Will Deacon wrote: >> Hi Andre, >> >> Thanks for doing this. Since it looks unlikely that kvmtool will ever be >> merged back into the kernel tree, it makes sense to cut the dependency >> in my opinion. >> > > P.S. Although both approaches still provide the kvmtool patch history, > they do not compile before the dependency cut patches. If that is an > issue, one could think about injecting those new patches back into the > repository time line. Admittedly that sounds scary, but would solve the > problem. If you can have it all it would be nice to preserve buildability all through your history for bisecting (and the moon on a stick please ;-) Is the dependency on the kernel sources something that has been stable over the projects history or something that's been declining/increasing over time? -- Alex Benn?e