On 04/17/2012 12:34 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> tree but his tree is in linux-next as well. There's no reason not to do
>>> that.
>>>
>>> That way, his next branch gets linux-next coverage whether it's in my
>>> tree or not, and I pull when I put the final powerpc-next together,
>>> which gives m
On 04/17/2012 09:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/17/2012 02:05 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 15:53 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
kvm.git next is exposed to linux-next, where they get tested quite a
lot. Granted it's mostly build testing, and people are unlikely to
test
kvm
On 04/17/2012 02:05 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 15:53 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> > kvm.git next is exposed to linux-next, where they get tested quite a
> > lot. Granted it's mostly build testing, and people are unlikely to
> > test
> > kvm there, but they will te
On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 15:53 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> kvm.git next is exposed to linux-next, where they get tested quite a
> lot. Granted it's mostly build testing, and people are unlikely to
> test
> kvm there, but they will test the non-kvm bits that creep in there.
>
> > The alternative wo
On 16.04.2012, at 14:53, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/16/2012 03:47 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 02.04.2012, at 11:46, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 12:06 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> The current process is such that it takes absolutely forever for our
> patche
On 04/16/2012 03:47 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 02.04.2012, at 11:46, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 12:06 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>> The current process is such that it takes absolutely forever for our
> >>> patches to get in, which is a major PITA for something i
On 02.04.2012, at 11:46, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 12:06 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> The current process is such that it takes absolutely forever for our
>>> patches to get in, which is a major PITA for something in such state of
>>> active development.
>>
>> If the
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 12:06 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > The current process is such that it takes absolutely forever for our
> > patches to get in, which is a major PITA for something in such state of
> > active development.
>
> If the patches were posted two weeks earlier, they would have gone i
On 04/02/2012 01:45 AM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 03:38:37PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 03/30/2012 03:01 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > > I just noticed that the branch you asked Linus to pull includes none
> > > of the patches that Alex sent you in the last batch, in the
On 04/02/2012 12:02 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 15:38 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 03/30/2012 03:01 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > > I just noticed that the branch you asked Linus to pull includes none
> > > of the patches that Alex sent you in the last batch, in the
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 03:38:37PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/30/2012 03:01 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > I just noticed that the branch you asked Linus to pull includes none
> > of the patches that Alex sent you in the last batch, in the email with
> > subject "[PULL 00/56] ppc patch queue 2
On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 15:38 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/30/2012 03:01 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > I just noticed that the branch you asked Linus to pull includes none
> > of the patches that Alex sent you in the last batch, in the email with
> > subject "[PULL 00/56] ppc patch queue 2012-03-
On 03/30/2012 03:01 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> I just noticed that the branch you asked Linus to pull includes none
> of the patches that Alex sent you in the last batch, in the email with
> subject "[PULL 00/56] ppc patch queue 2012-03-15" sent on March 15,
> where he asked you to pull git://gith
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:09:44PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > There are patches from me in there that have been pending since
> > December last year, and now look like they won't be going upstream
> > until June. So, under the circumstances, how would you (Avi) feel
> > about Ben and I committi
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
>
> Linus, what's your feeling here ? I'd really like to have the bulk of
> the powerpc updates this time around, they already missed the previous
> merge window due to maintainers taking too long to deal with their
> inbox :-)
If the
On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 12:09 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> That's fine if there are no interdependencies. It looks like 74df956
> will be a problem though.
>
> The other two options are:
>
> - I'll add my signoff to the commits that lack it. This unbreaks the
> committer lacks signoff.
> - I remov
On 03/26/2012 11:38 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:09:05PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > I can switch to fast-forward-only in the future, but I'm afraid that
> > this particular tree is broken for good. The un-rebased
> > fast-forward-only source for this is kvm.git master
On 03/26/2012 06:21 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > Say a fix comes in which needs to be mainlined during -rc. So
> > I put it in some other branch, to be sent off to Linus in a
> > few days after maturing a little. Meanwhile developers see an
> > incomplete tree, since tha
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:09:05PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> I can switch to fast-forward-only in the future, but I'm afraid that
> this particular tree is broken for good. The un-rebased
> fast-forward-only source for this is kvm.git master, which I don't think
> you want to pull. It will caus
On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 12:05 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Say a fix comes in which needs to be mainlined during -rc. So I put it
> in some other branch, to be sent off to Linus in a few days after
> maturing a little. Meanwhile developers see an incomplete tree, since
> that patch is not in it.
>
* Avi Kivity wrote:
> Say a fix comes in which needs to be mainlined during -rc. So
> I put it in some other branch, to be sent off to Linus in a
> few days after maturing a little. Meanwhile developers see an
> incomplete tree, since that patch is not in it.
>
> Once Linus pulls, I can me
On 03/25/2012 10:51 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 12:09 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > Well I've been doing this ever since I moved to git. The motivation was
> > actually to make things easier for patch authors by allowing them to
> > work against a tree of all applied
On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 12:09 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Well I've been doing this ever since I moved to git. The motivation was
> actually to make things easier for patch authors by allowing them to
> work against a tree of all applied patches, while the update for the
> next merge window is just
On 03/23/2012 05:15 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> wrote:
> >
> > That means that everything gets constantly rebased, and it makes life
> > very much harder for us working with this.
>
> Ben, thanks for pointing this out.
>
> I will not be pul
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
>
> That means that everything gets constantly rebased, and it makes life
> very much harder for us working with this.
Ben, thanks for pointing this out.
I will not be pulling this tree at all. It's pure and utter shit, and
I wonder
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 16:08 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Linus, please pull from
>
> ra.kernel.org:/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm.git kvm-updates/3.4
>
> (ssh URL as git.kernel.org is down at the moment) to receive the KVM
> updates for the 3.4 merge window. Changes include timekeeping
> improvements, s
Linus, please pull from
ra.kernel.org:/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm.git kvm-updates/3.4
(ssh URL as git.kernel.org is down at the moment) to receive the KVM
updates for the 3.4 merge window. Changes include timekeeping
improvements, support for assigning host PCI devices that share
interrupt lines, s
27 matches
Mail list logo
