[GIT PULL] KVM/arm64 updates for 6.2
Marc Zyngier
maz at kernel.org
Tue Dec 6 23:49:08 PST 2022
On Tue, 06 Dec 2022 21:43:43 +0000,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/6/22 19:20, Mark Brown wrote:
> >> I almost suggested doing that on multiple occasions this cycle, but ultimately
> >> decided not to because it would effectively mean splitting series that touch KVM
> >> and selftests into different trees, which would create a different kind of
> >> dependency hell. Or maybe a hybrid approach where series that only (or mostly?)
> >> touch selftests go into a dedicated tree?
> >
> > Some other subsystems do have a separate branch for kselftests. One
> > fairly common occurrence is that the selftests branch ends up failing to
> > build independently because someone adds new ABI together with a
> > selftest but the patches adding the ABI don't end up on the same branch
> > as the tests which try to use them. That is of course resolvable but
> > it's a common friction point.
>
> Yeah, the right solution is simply to merge selftests changes
> separately from the rest and use topic branches.
Don't know if this is what you have in mind, but I think that we
should use topic branches for *everything*. The only things for which
I don't use a separate branch are the odd drive-by patches, of the
spelling fix persuasion.
That's what we do for arm64 and the IRQ subsystem. It is a bit more
involved at queuing time, but makes dropping series from -next
extremely easy, without affecting the history. And crucially, it gives
everyone a hint to base their stuff on a stable commit, not a random
"tip of kvm/queue as of three days ago".
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list