On 7/7/22 9:04 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am 07.07.22 um 14:34 schrieb Matthew Rosato:
On 7/7/22 5:06 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am 04.07.22 um 13:25 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 02:48:25PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am 01.07.22 um 14:40 schrieb Eric Farman:
On Thu, 2022-06-30 at 20:44 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 10:36:36PM +0200, Eric Farman wrote:
Here's an updated pass through the first chunk of vfio-ccw rework.
As with v2, this is all internal to vfio-ccw, with the exception of
the removal of mdev_uuid from include/linux/mdev.h in patch 1.
There is one conflict with the vfio-next branch [2], on patch 6.
What tree do you plan to take it through?
Don't know. I know Matt's PCI series has a conflict with this same
patch also, but I haven't seen resolution to that. @Christian,
thoughts?
What about me making a topic branch that it being merged by Alex
AND the KVM tree
so that each of the conflicts can be solved in that way?
It make sense, I would base it on Alex's VFIO tree just to avoid
some conflicts in the first place. Matt can rebase on this, so lets
get things going?
So yes. Lets rebase on VFIO-next. Ideally Alex would then directly
pick Eric
patches.
@Christian to be clear, do you want me to also rebase the zPCI series
on vfio-next then?
For that we are probably better of me having a topic branch that is then
merged by Alex
and Paolo. Alex, Paolo, would be make sense?
For reference if needed, the zPCI series in question:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-s390/20220606203325.110625-1-mjrosato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
As an alternative: will the vfio patches build without the KVM patches
and vice versa,
I assume not?
No, there are dependencies in both directions.
At this point if the topic branch is how we will proceed then I suggest
just taking v9 as-is; the few minor nit comments from Pierre can be
addressed as follow-ons if desired.
