On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:35:51PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:19:54PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 09:54 +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 07:56:00PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: > > > > Hi Stefano, > > > > > > > > thanks for review! So when this patchset will be merged to net-next, > > > > I'll start sending next part of MSG_ZEROCOPY patchset, e.g. AF_VSOCK + > > > > Documentation/ patches. > > > > > > Ack, if it is not a very big series, maybe better to include also the > > > tests so we can run them before merge the feature. > > > > I understand that at least 2 follow-up series are waiting for this, one > > of them targeting net-next and the bigger one targeting the virtio > > tree. Am I correct? > > IIUC the next series will touch only the vsock core > (net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c), tests, and documentation. > > The virtio part should be fully covered by this series. > > @Arseniy feel free to correct me! > > > > > DaveM suggests this should go via the virtio tree, too. Any different > > opinion? > > For this series should be fine, I'm not sure about the next series. > Merging this with the virtio tree, then it forces us to do it for > followup as well right? > > In theory followup is more on the core, so better with net-next, but > it's also true that for now only virtio transports support it, so it > might be okay to continue with virtio. > > @Michael WDYT? > > Thanks, > Stefano I didn't get DaveM's mail - was this off-list? I think net-next is easier because the follow up belongs in net-next. But if not I can take it, sure. Let me know. -- MST
