From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] arm64/kvm: use common sysreg definitions Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 18:42:24 +0000 Message-ID: <20170310184224.GE24571@leverpostej> References: <1489079247-31092-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <87a88tv94d.fsf@on-the-bus.cambridge.arm.com> <20170310183555.GB6271@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97B1C40A14 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:41:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L+G-nUfcLF7H for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:41:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F9640960 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:41:10 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170310183555.GB6271@arm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu To: Will Deacon Cc: Marc Zyngier , catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu List-Id: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu 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: > > On Thu, Mar 09 2017 at 5:07:12 pm GMT, Mark Rutland 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. Sure thing. Let me know if you want me to rebase this, otherwise I'll leave my current branch as-is. Thanks, Mark. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 18:42:24 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 00/15] arm64/kvm: use common sysreg definitions In-Reply-To: <20170310183555.GB6271@arm.com> References: <1489079247-31092-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <87a88tv94d.fsf@on-the-bus.cambridge.arm.com> <20170310183555.GB6271@arm.com> Message-ID: <20170310184224.GE24571@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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: > > On Thu, Mar 09 2017 at 5:07:12 pm GMT, Mark Rutland 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. Sure thing. Let me know if you want me to rebase this, otherwise I'll leave my current branch as-is. Thanks, Mark.