[PATCH 00/15] arm64/kvm: use common sysreg definitions

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:29:31PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 07:48:28PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 06:35:13PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 06:35:55PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 08:17:22AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > The next question is how do we merge this. Obviously, we can't split it
> > > > > between trees, and this is very likely to clash with anything that we
> > > > > will merge on the KVM side (the sysreg table is a popular place).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Will, Catalin: Would it make sense to create a stable branch with these
> > > > > patches, and merge it into both the arm64 and KVM trees? That'd make
> > > > > things easier...
> > > > 
> > > > I think the scope for conflict on our side is pretty high too, so a shared
> > > > branch might be the best way to go. I don't want to branch just yet though,
> > > > so I'll probably wait a week or so before setting something in stone.
> > > 
> > > Any further thoughts on this?
> > > 
> > > Christoffer has Acked the KVM bits, so if you're happy to do so for the
> > > arm64 bits I can make a stable branch.
> > 
> > Looking around, it doesn't look like there's anything outside of arm64
> > that'll conflict on the <asm/sysreg.h> changes, and git's happy to merge
> > my changes with Suzuki's changes currently queued in arm64's
> > for-next/core branch.
> > 
> > I think it would make sense for those to be in a common branch taken by
> > both the arm64 and KVM trees, with the KVM-specific parts being taken by
> > KVM alone atop of that.
> > 
> > Would everyone be happy with that?
> 
> I'm happy with that.
> 
> > 
> > For reference, I've updated my branches so that arm64/common-sysreg only
> > contains the common parts, with the KVM parts atop of that in
> > kvm/common-sysreg.
> > 
> 
> Will, Catalin:  Let me know if you're going to pull from common-sysreg
> and I'll do the same and add the kvm patches above.

I think that's what we'll do, but Catalin's out this week (we're taking it
in turns to go to work). I'd say go ahead and pull it into kvm if there
aren't any conflicts. No need to wait for us.

Mark -- those branches are stable, right?

Will