On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:49:31PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 19:41:41 +1000 > > Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 07:13:10 +0100 > >> > Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> >> This driver never had any open userspace (which for VFIO would include > >> >> VM kernel drivers) that use it, and thus should never have been added > >> >> by our normal userspace ABI rules. > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > >> >> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig | 6 - > >> >> drivers/vfio/pci/Makefile | 1 - > >> >> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c | 18 - > >> >> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_nvlink2.c | 490 ---------------------------- > >> >> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h | 14 - > >> >> include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 38 +-- > >> >> 6 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 563 deletions(-) > >> >> delete mode 100644 drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_nvlink2.c > >> > > >> > Hearing no objections, applied to vfio next branch for v5.13. Thanks, > >> > >> Looks like you only took patch 1? > >> > >> I can't take patch 2 on its own, that would break the build. > >> > >> Do you want to take both patches? There's currently no conflicts against > >> my tree. It's possible one could appear before the v5.13 merge window, > >> though it would probably just be something minor. > >> > >> Or I could apply both patches to my tree, which means patch 1 would > >> appear as two commits in the git history, but that's not a big deal. > > > > I've already got a conflict in my next branch with patch 1, so it's > > best to go through my tree. Seems like a shared branch would be > > easiest to allow you to merge and manage potential conflicts against > > patch 2, I've pushed a branch here: > > > > https://github.com/awilliam/linux-vfio.git v5.13/vfio/nvlink > > Thanks. > > My next is based on rc2, so I won't pull that in directly, because I > don't want to pull all of rc6 in with it. Linus is fine if you merge in rc's for development reasons. He doesn't like it when people just merge rc's without a purpose. Merge rc7 to your tree then pull the nvlink topic is acceptable. Or just do nothing because Alex will send it through his tree - this extra co-ordination is really only necessary if there are conflicts. Jason
