Planning the merge of KVM/arm64

[anup@brainfault.org (Anup Patel)]

Hi Marc,

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> wrote:
> Guys,
>
> The KVM/arm64 code is now, as it seems, in good enough shape to be
> merged. I've so far addressed all the comments, and it doesn't seem any
> worse then what is queued for its 32bit counterpart.
>
> For reference, it is sitting there:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git
> kvm-arm64/kvm
>
> What is not defined yet is the merge path:
> - It is touching some of the arm64 core code, so it would be better if
> it was merged through the arm64 tree
> - It is depending on some of the patches in the core KVM queue (the
> vgic/timer move to virt/kvm/arm/)
> - It is also depending on some of the patches that are in the KVM/ARM
> queue (parametrized timer interrupt, some MMU/MMIO fixes)
>
> So I can see two possibilities:
> - Either I can rely on a stable branch from both KVM and KVM/ARM trees
> on which I can base my tree for Catalin/Will to pull,
> - Or I ask Catalin to only pull the arm64 part *minus the Kconfig*, and
> only merge this last bit when the dependencies are satisfied in Linus' tree.
>
> What do you guys think?

I had quick look at your kvm-arm64/kvm branch. I agree with the approach
of going through arm64 tree.

FYI, latest tested branch on APM ARMv8 board is kvm-arm64/kvm-3.10-rc3
branch.

>From my side, +1 for the second option that is "pull the arm64 part *minus
the Kconfig*, and ..."

>
> Thanks,
>
>         M.
> --
> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kvmarm mailing list
> kvmarm at lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm

Regards,
Anup