From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 15:22:46 +1000 From: Paul Mackerras To: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/13] Hypervisor-mode KVM on POWER7 Message-ID: <20110519052246.GA8165@drongo> References: <20110511103443.GA2837@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com> <764651B6-6DDA-49DC-AA95-52CD86FF82D9@suse.de> <20110517111536.GC7924@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com> <14CFAA70-1747-4902-8CC1-4BE924CAD031@suse.de> <4DD25F10.4030707@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4DD25F10.4030707@redhat.com> Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" , Alexander Graf , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 02:42:08PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 05/17/2011 02:38 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> > >> What would be the path for these patches to get upstream? Would this > >> stuff normally go through Avi's tree? There is a bit of a > >> complication in that they are based on Ben's next branch. Would Avi > >> pull Ben's next branch, or would they go in via Ben's tree? > > > >Usually the ppc tree gets merged into Avi's tree and goes on from > >there. When we have interdependencies, we can certainly do it > >differently though. We can also shove them through Ben's tree this > >time around, as there are more dependencies on ppc code than KVM > >code. > > > > Yes, both options are fine. If it goes through kvm.git I can merge > Ben's tree (provided it is append-only) and apply the kvm-ppc > patches on top. OK, the easiest thing is for them to go via Ben's tree, I think, since they depend so much on other stuff in Ben's tree. Alex, could you give Ben an acked-by for patches 1-8 of the series? There haven't been any changes requested for them. Thanks, Paul.