Planning the merge of KVM/arm64

[Steve Capper]

On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:40:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:30:52PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 04/06/2013 16:59, Marc Zyngier ha scritto:
> > >>> >> - Either I can rely on a stable branch from both KVM and KVM/ARM trees
> > >>> >> on which I can base my tree for Catalin/Will to pull,
> > >>> >> - Or I ask Catalin to only pull the arm64 part *minus the Kconfig*, and
> > >>> >> only merge this last bit when the dependencies are satisfied in Linus' tree.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> What do you guys think?
> > >>> >>
> > >> > I would think you would prefer option (1) to get the code in cleaner.
> > >> > Both the KVM/next tree is stable and I can provide you with a stable
> > >> > KVM/ARM tree. But I really don't feel strongly about this.
> > > That'd be my preferred choice too. Let's see what the KVM maintainers'
> > > position on that.
> > 
> > I wonder if Linus would complain about irrelevant KVM changes in
> > Will/Catalin's pull request.  The KVM/next tree has other patches below
> > the ones you need.
> > 
> > What we usually do for x86 is get an Acked-by from the other part.  If
> > there are no dependencies on other aarch64 core changes, it'd be better
> > to go through the KVM tree.  Otherwise separating the Kconfig change
> > should be okay (perhaps add it with depends on BROKEN, and remove the
> > dependency later?).
> 
> Well you can certainly have my ack for the series but, as you say, it
> depends whether there are further dependencies on patches queued for aarch64
> core. For 3.11, conflicts with Steve's (CC'd) hugetlb stuff are likely.
> 
>   Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com>
> 
> Will
> 

I'd be happy to rebase/test the aarch64 huge page code against a branch if
that's helpful?

Cheers,
-- 
Steve