On 8/19/21 11:30 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18 2021, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> 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/
Yeah, I thought so as well. But it also looks like something that could
be a fixup on top.
I will post the new patch today. I was waiting for the remainder of
the feedback and frankly forgot to post the patch incorporating
the changes precipitated by the previous comments.
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?
I'm also unsure about the kvm->lock thing. Is taking the lock buried
somewhere deep in the code that will ultimately trigger the release?
I would at least like a pointer.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, but if you follow the
thread starting with the link above it may reveal the answer to
what you are asking here.
It can ultimately go in through my tree, but not being familiar with
this code I'd hope for more closure. Thanks,
Alex
