From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.136]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8961C1A1E32 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 2015 06:51:51 +1000 (AEST) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:51:45 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Michael Ellerman Cc: Hemant Kumar , maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, warrier@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, scottwood@freescale.com, sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, mingo@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] perf,kvm/powerpc: Add kvm_perf.h for powerpc Message-ID: <20150904205145.GB3475@kernel.org> References: <1441003681-10259-1-git-send-email-hemant@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150831201300.GG4423@kernel.org> <55E54A4F.6090205@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <55E54A4F.6090205@linux.vnet.ibm.com> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Em Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:18:47PM +0530, Hemant Kumar escreveu: > >Should I try to process the 5 together, applying thest two first? > Yes, this patchset needs to be applied before applying the other patchset, > since there is a direct dependency on these two for the tooling part to > work. > >I see there are no acks from powerpc arch maintainers, how should we > >proceed here? If there are no problems with the arch bits, and if it is > >just to enable the tooling part, again, should I process the 5 as just > >one series? > The reason to split the earlier patchset into two was to separate the > tooling/perf/ and arch/powerpc/ side patches, as asked by Michael.. > Here is the link to that discussion : > http://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/msg86916.html > If Michael is ok with the patches, you can process all the 5 patches > together. Michael? Michael? - Arnaldo