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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:55:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20170329095532.GA23442@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> <20170328202931.GF20211@cbox> <20170329084146.GA15778@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 1AA3D40A69 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 05:53:57 -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 pQNWNlVJzgb5 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 05:53:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB4E440966 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 05:53:55 -0400 (EDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170329084146.GA15778@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 , Christoffer Dall , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com List-Id: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:41:47AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:29:31PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > 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: > > > 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. > > I think that's what we'll do, but Catalin's out this week (we're taking it > in turns to go to work). I'd say go ahead and pull it into kvm if there > aren't any conflicts. No need to wait for us. > > Mark -- those branches are stable, right? They are now. I will not touch either branch. Thanks, Mark. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:55:32 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 00/15] arm64/kvm: use common sysreg definitions In-Reply-To: <20170329084146.GA15778@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> <20170322183512.GB27921@leverpostej> <20170328184828.GF8643@leverpostej> <20170328202931.GF20211@cbox> <20170329084146.GA15778@arm.com> Message-ID: <20170329095532.GA23442@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:41:47AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:29:31PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > 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: > > > 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. > > I think that's what we'll do, but Catalin's out this week (we're taking it > in turns to go to work). I'd say go ahead and pull it into kvm if there > aren't any conflicts. No need to wait for us. > > Mark -- those branches are stable, right? They are now. I will not touch either branch. Thanks, Mark.