From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoffer Dall Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] arm64/kvm: use common sysreg definitions Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 22:29:31 +0200 Message-ID: <20170328202931.GF20211@cbox> 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> <20170328184828.GF8643@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 6E0E740992 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:27:35 -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 dWbFnbQpRsvD for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:27:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4863A40969 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:27:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id u132so48922431wmg.0 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:29:33 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170328184828.GF8643@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: Mark Rutland Cc: Marc Zyngier , catalin.marinas@arm.com, Will Deacon , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 07:48:28PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > 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? I'm 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. > Will, Catalin: Let me know if you're going to pull from common-sysreg and I'll do the same and add the kvm patches above. Thanks for preparing the patches. -Christoffer From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: cdall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 22:29:31 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 00/15] arm64/kvm: use common sysreg definitions In-Reply-To: <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> <20170328184828.GF8643@leverpostej> Message-ID: <20170328202931.GF20211@cbox> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 07:48:28PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > 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? I'm 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. > Will, Catalin: Let me know if you're going to pull from common-sysreg and I'll do the same and add the kvm patches above. Thanks for preparing the patches. -Christoffer