From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755272Ab2DQILn (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 04:11:43 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54403 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754678Ab2DQILk (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 04:11:40 -0400 Message-ID: <4F8D19D3.1060002@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:20:51 +0300 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt CC: Alexander Graf , Paul Mackerras , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel , KVM list , Marcelo Tosatti , Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM updates for the 3.4 merge window References: <4F688F48.6090303@redhat.com> <1332461414.2982.90.camel@pasglop> <4F6EEEC1.4030608@redhat.com> <20120326213809.GA29788@bloggs.ozlabs.ibm.com> <4F7191E8.7020804@redhat.com> <20120330120107.GA28503@bloggs.ozlabs.ibm.com> <4F784C4D.3000409@redhat.com> <1333314138.30734.17.camel@pasglop> <4F796C18.2040209@redhat.com> <1333359979.30734.48.camel@pasglop> <3BB9812B-6FE2-4370-9D55-D273364BFFD1@suse.de> <4F8C1652.7000004@redhat.com> <1334617517.25353.17.camel@pasglop> In-Reply-To: <1334617517.25353.17.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/17/2012 02:05 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 15:53 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > > kvm.git next is exposed to linux-next, where they get tested quite a > > lot. Granted it's mostly build testing, and people are unlikely to > > test > > kvm there, but they will test the non-kvm bits that creep in there. > > > > > The alternative would be that I don't have a -next tree, just > > collect patches and immediately send them to Avi. That way the main > > kvm tree would be broken more often, but at least we don't get these > > horrible synchronization latencies. > > > > That works too. Don't post immediately; 2-3 week batches would reduce > > noise. > > Or do like I do with Kumar for FSL stuff... his stuff gets pulled via my > tree but his tree is in linux-next as well. There's no reason not to do > that. > > That way, his next branch gets linux-next coverage whether it's in my > tree or not, and I pull when I put the final powerpc-next together, > which gives me a chance to do a quick vet "just in case" and sort out > any major conflict before it all goes to Linus. > Sure, that works too. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function