Re: Paravirt-ops next steps

[Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> It'd be better to develop and test this work on top of Thomas's stuff, as
> that's what 2.6.20 will doubtless look like.  That means working against
> -mm.  Once Thomas's patches are in mainline then the patches will apply to
> Andi's tree too and I can send them over to him.
>
> That way, the patch-applying-order equals mainstream-merging-order equals
> chronological-writing-order, which is generally a good thing.
>   

Sounds sane.  Are Thomas's patches in -rc5-mm1?  If so, we should rebase 
paravirt-ops, although I don't want to lose any paravirt patches that 
you've dropped because they were merged to Andi.  Don't know if that is 
the case, but I did see a bunch of "merged into a subsystem tree" drops 
from -mm related to paravirt.

Thanks,

Zach