Re: [PATCH v5 00/15] s390x: Add support for virtio-blk-pci IPL device

[Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>]

On 3/9/26 11:40 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 09/03/2026 15.00, Matthew Rosato wrote:
>> On 3/8/26 8:35 PM, jrossi@linux.ibm.com wrote:
>>> From: Jared Rossi <jrossi@linux.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> This patch series introduces an IPLB subtype to support PCI devices, which may
>>> be built if a device has been assigned a boot index and is identified as a PCI
>>> device with a corresponding s390 PCI Bus device.
>>>
>>> Boot support is only added for virtio-blk-pci at this time and is limited to
>>> devices with an assigned bootindex.
>>>
>>> A "loadparm" property is added to virtio-blk-pci boot devices on s390x.
>>>
>>> A simple test to check basic functionality is added to the cdrom-tests in qtest.
>>>
>>> Changes v4 -> v5:
>>>      - Fix incorrect switch/case for virtio block device ID
>>>      - Use target_s390x() instead of qemu_arch_available(QEMU_ARCH_S390X)
>>>      - Properly denote switch fallthrough
>>>      - Remove reduntant RC checks in PCI read/write
>>>
>>
>> Rather than reply to individual patches, I noticed new copyright lines with 2025 dates on the following patches that should be updated to 2026:
>>
>> 6: pc-bios/s390-ccw: Split virtio-ccw and generic virtio
>> 8: pc-bios/s390-ccw: Introduce CLP Architecture
>> 10: pc-bios/s390-ccw: Introduce PCI device
>> 11: pc-bios/s390-ccw: Introduce virtio-pci functions
>>
>> Thomas, if there are no further comments would you still like Jared to respin for that kind of change or would you just fix up when you pick up the series?
> 
> I've seen different opinions on the year in copyright statements in the past (also from various people from IBM) - some say, it should be the year when the code was written/initially posted, some say, it should be the year when the code gets merged ... I personally don't mind too much anymore. For me, it's also ok if we keep the 2025.
> 
> Anyway, tomorrow (Tuesday) is softfreeze, so I'm going to send a pull request for this series tomorrow - let me know by then if you want me to fix up the year, or if you rather prefer to keep 2025.
> 

I actually wonder why we have the year at all (besides convention)...  But I do not have a strong opinion about it and was checking about a re-spin exactly because of soft freeze.

If you are OK with 2025 then that is also fine by me, leave it as-is.  

Thanks,
Matt