On 19.05.2011, at 07:22, Paul Mackerras wrote:

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 02:42:08PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:

quoted

On 05/17/2011 02:38 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:

quoted

quoted

=20
What would be the path for these patches to get upstream?  Would =

this

quoted

quoted

quoted

stuff normally go through Avi's tree?  There is a bit of a
complication in that they are based on Ben's next branch.  Would =

Avi

quoted

quoted

quoted

pull Ben's next branch, or would they go in via Ben's tree?

=20
Usually the ppc tree gets merged into Avi's tree and goes on from
there. When we have interdependencies, we can certainly do it
differently though. We can also shove them through Ben's tree this
time around, as there are more dependencies on ppc code than KVM
code.
=20

=20
Yes, both options are fine.  If it goes through kvm.git I can merge
Ben's tree (provided it is append-only) and apply the kvm-ppc
patches on top.

=20
OK, the easiest thing is for them to go via Ben's tree, I think, since
they depend so much on other stuff in Ben's tree.
=20
Alex, could you give Ben an acked-by for patches 1-8 of the series?
There haven't been any changes requested for them.

Let me give them a spin on a G5, so I can at least verify nothing breaks =
;). I'll hopefully get to this before next week.

Alex