Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 6 Feb 2013 22:46:46 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: kvmtool tree (Was: Re: [patch] config: fix make kvmconfig) |
| |
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi David, > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 12:12:57 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, that's a good idea - I think Pekka can apply that change > > > > just fine to help anyone doing merges - I don't think kconfig > > > > treats it as a fatal error. > > > > > > Applied, thanks guys! > > > > Adding Stephen to the cc. > > > > What's the endgame for kvmtool/next? The patch that this fixes has been > > sitting in linux-next for over 15 months and hasn't been pulled by Linus, > > yet some find it to be quite useful. > > > > Is it a permanent addition to linux-next, is there a route to mainline, > > or something else? > > Linus has said that he will not take the kvmtool tree in its > current form, but would prefer that it be a separate project, > so I should really drop it from linux-next (and ask the tip > guys to remove it from their auto-latest branch). > > I have actually been meaning to get back to this, so, today I > will drop the kvmtool tree and, Ingo, if you could (at your > convenience i.e. when you are next rebasing it) remove it from > tip/auto-latest, thanks.
Pekka still intends to send it in the next merge window AFAIK, and I use it for testing rather frequently so I'm not going to remove it from my tree for the time being.
Note that I never actually had any maintenance problems due to it: it's orthogonal, and as long as you don't use it explicitly (such as its 'make kvmconfig' feature - which is rather handy) it never actually broke anything.
Thanks,
Ingo
|  |