[GIT PULL] KVM/arm64 updates for 6.2

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 12/7/22 08:49, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, I just wish we had better tools to manage them...

Paolo

> 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.
>