On 18.08.21 18:39, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:59:51 +0200
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 02.08.21 18:32, Tony Krowiak wrote:
On 8/2/21 9:53 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 09:10:26 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
PING!
This patch will pre-req version 17 of a patch series I have waiting in
the wings,
so I'd like to get this one merged ASAP. In particular, if a KVM
maintainer can
take a look at the comments concerning the taking of the kvm->lock
before the
matrix_mdev->lock it would be greatly appreciated. Those comments begin with
Message ID <20210727004329.3bcc7d4f.pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> from Halil Pasic.
As far as I'm concerned, we can move forward with this. Was this
supposed to go in via Alex's tree?
I am not certain, Christian queued the previous patches related to
this on:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git/log/?h=fixes
Jason G., since this will need to be integrated with your other patches,
where should this be queued?
This previous patch (s390/vfio-ap: clean up mdev resources when remove callback invoked) is
already in master.
Can you respin the series with all Acks and RBs?
Alex, can you then take these 2 patches via your tree? Thanks
Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
for this series.
I see some review feedback that seems to suggest a new version would be
posted:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-s390/0f03ab0b-2dfd-e1c1-fe43-be2a59030a71@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
I also see in this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-s390/20210721164550.5402fe1c.pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
that Halil's concern's around open/close races are addressed by Jason's
device_open/close series that's already in my next branch and he
provided an Ack, but there's still the above question regarding the
kvm->lock that was looking for a review from... I'm not sure, maybe
Connie or Paolo. Christian, is this specifically what you're ack'ing?
My understanding was that Halil was ok in the end?
I will do a review myself then if that helps.
It can ultimately go in through my tree, but not being familiar with
this code I'd hope for more closure. Thanks,
Alex
