From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/21] arm64: GICv3 support Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:43:37 -0400 Message-ID: <20140630154337.GR23978@titan.lakedaemon.net> References: <1404140510-5382-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Christoffer Dall , Thomas Gleixner To: Marc Zyngier Return-path: Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:36503 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751111AbaF3Pns (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:43:48 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1404140510-5382-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Marc, On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 04:01:29PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > I now have received enough Reviewed-by from people familiar with the > architecture, and a number of Tested-by from actual implementors, > which (IMHO) makes ready for merging into 3.17 (Thomas, Jason: How do > you want to play it? We have a rather big dependency between the first > few patches and the rest of the stuff, which is KVM only). On a quick glance, it looks like patch #1 is conflict-prone and #2 crosses outside of irqchip/. So, I could setup a topic branch for #1 that we'll both use. Then I'll Ack #2 for you to take. Would that work for you? thx, Jason. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jason@lakedaemon.net (Jason Cooper) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:43:37 -0400 Subject: [PATCH v6 00/21] arm64: GICv3 support In-Reply-To: <1404140510-5382-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> References: <1404140510-5382-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> Message-ID: <20140630154337.GR23978@titan.lakedaemon.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Marc, On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 04:01:29PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > I now have received enough Reviewed-by from people familiar with the > architecture, and a number of Tested-by from actual implementors, > which (IMHO) makes ready for merging into 3.17 (Thomas, Jason: How do > you want to play it? We have a rather big dependency between the first > few patches and the rest of the stuff, which is KVM only). On a quick glance, it looks like patch #1 is conflict-prone and #2 crosses outside of irqchip/. So, I could setup a topic branch for #1 that we'll both use. Then I'll Ack #2 for you to take. Would that work for you? thx, Jason.