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: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:48:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20170328184828.GF8643@leverpostej> References: <1489079247-31092-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <87a88tv94d.fsf@on-the-bus.cambridge.arm.com> <20170310183555.GB6271@arm.com> <20170322183512.GB27921@leverpostej> 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 EE44340A86 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:46:48 -0400 (EDT) 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 4oLNhK6Se+wB for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:46:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1AA340A7B for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:46:47 -0400 (EDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170322183512.GB27921@leverpostej> 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 , catalin.marinas@arm.com, Christoffer Dall , Marc Zyngier Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu 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 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? 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. Thanks, Mark. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:48:28 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 00/15] arm64/kvm: use common sysreg definitions In-Reply-To: <20170322183512.GB27921@leverpostej> References: <1489079247-31092-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <87a88tv94d.fsf@on-the-bus.cambridge.arm.com> <20170310183555.GB6271@arm.com> <20170322183512.GB27921@leverpostej> Message-ID: <20170328184828.GF8643@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 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? 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. Thanks, Mark.