From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] KVM: VMX: Simplify segment_base Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 05:28:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <211929849.24027362.1487672898147.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> References: <20170214194259.75960-1-thgarnie@google.com> <20170221080332.GB3125@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: In-Reply-To: <20170221080332.GB3125@gmail.com> To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Thomas Garnier , Andy Lutomirski , Jim Mattson , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , Andrey Ryabinin , Alexander Potapenko , Dmitry Vyukov , Kees Cook , Andy Lutomirski , Borislav Petkov , Paul Gortmaker , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Len Brown , Pavel Machek , Jiri Kosina , Matt Fleming , Ard Biesheuvel , Boris Ostrovsky , Juergen Gross List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org > Paolo, how stable, non-rebasing are the KVM tree commits? Whatever ends in linux-next is stable. I have a separate rebasing branch, but it's not part of linux-next by design. > Or should we keep Andy's KVM patches together with the GDT patches? Either > workflow works for me - it's your call as these are predominantly KVM > changes. I'll delay my pull request to Linus a couple days so that I can test Andy's 6 patches. Then you can just base your branch on Linus's tree. Paolo