From: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 1:03 PM
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 11:01:14PM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
>This patchset (consisting of 9 patches) was part of the v4 patchset (consisting
>of 12 patches):
>The other 3 patches in v4 are posted in another patchset, which will go
>through the tip.git tree.
>All the 9 patches here are now rebased to the hyperv tree's hyperv-next
branch, and all the 9 patches have Michael Kelley's Signed-off-by's.
Given that these two series depend on each other, I'd much prefer for
them to go through one tree.
Yeah, that would be ideal. The problem here is: the other patchset conflicts
with the existing patches in the tip.git tree's timers/core branch, so IMO
the 3 patches have to go through the tip tree:
[PATCH v5 1/3] x86/hyper-v: Suspend/resume the hypercall page for hibernation
[PATCH v5 2/3] x86/hyper-v: Implement hv_is_hibernation_supported()
[PATCH v5 3/3] clocksource/drivers: Suspend/resume Hyper-V clocksource for hibernation
But, I may be wrong, and I'm going to see if a scenario such as this
make sense. I've queued this one to the hyperv-next, but I'll wait for
the x86 folks to send their pull request to Linus first before I do it
for these patches.
Actually IMHO you don't need to wait, because there is not a build
dependency, so either patchset can go into the Linus's tree first.