On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:41 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 03:30:33PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:15:55PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:04 PM <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Since last version [4] i added the extra bits needed for the change_pte > > > > optimization (which is a KSM thing). Here i am not posting users of > > > > this, they will be posted to the appropriate sub-systems (KVM, GPU, > > > > RDMA, ...) once this serie get upstream. If you want to look at users > > > > of this see [5] [6]. If this gets in 5.1 then i will be submitting > > > > those users for 5.2 (including KVM if KVM folks feel comfortable with > > > > it). > > > > > > The users look small and straightforward. Why not await acks and > > > reviewed-by's for the users like a typical upstream submission and > > > merge them together? Is all of the functionality of this > > > infrastructure consumed by the proposed users? Last time I checked it > > > was only a subset. > > > > Yes pretty much all is use, the unuse case is SOFT_DIRTY and CLEAR > > vs UNMAP. Both of which i intend to use. The RDMA folks already ack > > the patches IIRC, so did radeon and amdgpu. I believe the i915 folks > > were ok with it too. I do not want to merge things through Andrew > > for all of this we discussed that in the past, merge mm bits through > > Andrew in one release and bits that use things in the next release. > > It is usually cleaner for everyone to split patches like this, for > instance I always prefer to merge RDMA patches via RDMA when > possible. Less conflicts. > > The other somewhat reasonable option is to get acks and send your own > complete PR to Linus next week? That works OK for tree-wide changes. Yes, I'm not proposing that they be merged together, instead I'm just looking for the acked-by / reviewed-by tags even if those patches are targeting the next merge window.
