On 05.05.19 13:15, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2019 16:03:40 +0200
> Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 3 May 2019 16:04:48 -0400
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 11:17:24AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 20:32:36 +0200
>>>> Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The commit 2a2d1382fe9d ("virtio: Add improved queue allocation API")
>>>>> establishes a new way of allocating virtqueues (as a part of the effort
>>>>> that taught DMA to virtio rings).
>>>>>
>>>>> In the future we will want virtio-ccw to use the DMA API as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let us switch from the legacy method of allocating virtqueues to
>>>>> vring_create_virtqueue() as the first step into that direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 30 +++++++++++-------------------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> I'd vote for merging this patch right away for 5.2.
>>>
>>> So which tree is this going through? mine?
>>>
>>
>> Christian, what do you think? If the whole series is supposed to go in
>> in one go (which I hope it is), via Martin's tree could be the simplest
>> route IMHO.
>
>
> The first three patches are virtio(-ccw) only and the those are the ones
> that I think are ready to go.
>
> I'm not feeling comfortable going forward with the remainder as it
> stands now; waiting for some other folks to give feedback. (They are
> touching/interacting with code parts I'm not so familiar with, and lack
> of documentation, while not the developers' fault, does not make it
> easier.)
>
> Michael, would you like to pick up 1-3 for your tree directly? That
> looks like the easiest way.
Agreed. Michael please pick 1-3.
We will continue to review 4- first and then see which tree is best.
