On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 22:38 -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > 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: > > > > > 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? Yes, that was off-list co-ordination. > 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. Since there is agreement on that route, we will take it (likely tomorrow). Cheers, Paolo
