On 2021.05.13 09:02:49 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 12:56:47PM +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote: > > On 2021.05.12 09:47:39 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 10:31:41AM +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > This need to go into the vfio tree in some way, either directly > > > > > through it, via rc or otherwise > > > > > > > > As this is only for i915/gvt, once drm/i915 backmerge with linus master, > > > > it should still go through normal i915/gvt merge path. > > > > > > Don't do this, you will create conflicts with ongoing vfio work. > > > > > > > Sure, there always could be conflict, which means you need to rebase onto > > this cleanup. Would that a problem? > > Yes. > > > I'd want to fix current workaround in 5.13-rc. > > This doesn't seem like a rc candiate to me, but going to -rc is also > fine. > > > Merging i915/gvt only change through vfio doesn't make sense to me, > > You need to do it to avoid major conflicts for stuff that will go into > the vfio tree this cycle. Looks apply to vfio/for-linus is fine, and vfio/next missed gvt change to apply...but not conflict with any new stuff. Alex, pls let me know if you have any concern of this. > > VFIO drivers should not be outside drivers/vfio/ in the first place, > and this shows why. > Well, I can't agree, otherwise that'll be dependency nightmare for device driver writer. ;)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
