From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
hch@infradead.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, israelr@nvidia.com, nitzanc@nvidia.com,
oren@nvidia.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] virtio-blk: add num_io_queues module parameter
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 05:50:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210912054959-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f58f955e-ef27-fba1-7417-8d37a175e872@nvidia.com>
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 12:37:26PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>
> On 9/12/2021 12:07 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 03:56:45PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > On 9/10/2021 1:57 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 07:45:42PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > On 9/9/2021 7:31 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 06:51:56PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > > > On 9/9/2021 6:40 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 06:37:37PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 9/9/2021 4:42 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 02:59:40PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 9/6/2021 2:20 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 01:31:32AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/5/2021 7:02 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 02:45:52PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 04:50:35PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sometimes a user would like to control the amount of IO queues to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created for a block device. For example, for limiting the memory
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > footprint of virtio-blk devices.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes from v1:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - use param_set_uint_minmax (from Christoph)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - added "Should > 0" to module description
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note: This commit apply on top of Jens's branch for-5.15/drivers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 4b49df2dfd23..9332fc4e9b31 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -24,6 +24,22 @@
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* The maximum number of sg elements that fit into a virtqueue */
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #define VIRTIO_BLK_MAX_SG_ELEMS 32768
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static int virtblk_queue_count_set(const char *val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + const struct kernel_param *kp)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + return param_set_uint_minmax(val, kp, 1, nr_cpu_ids);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm which tree is this for?
> > > > > > > > > > > I've mentioned in the note that it apply on branch for-5.15/drivers. But now
> > > > > > > > > > > you can apply it on linus/master as well.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static const struct kernel_param_ops queue_count_ops = {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + .set = virtblk_queue_count_set,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + .get = param_get_uint,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +};
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static unsigned int num_io_queues;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +module_param_cb(num_io_queues, &queue_count_ops, &num_io_queues, 0644);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(num_io_queues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + "Number of IO virt queues to use for blk device. Should > 0");
> > > > > > > > > > > > better:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(num_io_request_queues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > + "Limit number of IO request virt queues to use for each device. 0 for now limit");
> > > > > > > > > > > You proposed it and I replied on it bellow.
> > > > > > > > > > Can't say I understand 100% what you are saying. Want to send
> > > > > > > > > > a description that does make sense to you but
> > > > > > > > > > also reflects reality? 0 is the default so
> > > > > > > > > > "should > 0" besides being ungrammatical does not seem t"
> > > > > > > > > > reflect what it does ...
> > > > > > > > > if you "modprobe virtio_blk" the previous behavior will happen.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You can't "modprobe virtio_blk num_io_request_queues=0" since the minimal
> > > > > > > > > value is 1.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So your description is not reflecting the code.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We can do:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(num_io_request_queues, "Number of request virt queues to use for blk device. Minimum value is 1 queue");
> > > > > > > > What's the default value? We should document that.
> > > > > > > default value for static global variables is 0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(num_io_request_queues, "Number of request virt queues to
> > > > > > > use for blk device. Minimum value is 1 queue. Default and Maximum value is
> > > > > > > equal to the total number of CPUs");
> > > > > > So it says it's the # of cpus but yoiu inspect it with
> > > > > > sysfs and it's actually 0. Let's say that's confusing
> > > > > > at the least. why not just let users set it to 0
> > > > > > and document that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Setting it by the user to 0 makes no sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can say "if not set, the value equals to the total number of CPUs".
> > > > the value is 0. it seems to mean "no limit". the actual # of queues is
> > > > then te smaller between # of cpus and # of hardware queues.
> > > > I see no reason not to allow user to set that especially if
> > > > it was originally the value then user changed it
> > > > and is trying to change it back.
> > > I fine with that.
> > >
> > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(num_io_request_queues, "Number of request virt queues to use for blk device. 0 value means no limitation");
> > >
> > OK and the second distinction is that it's a limit on the
> > number, not the actual number. It's never more than what's provided
> > by the hypervisor.
>
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(num_io_request_queues, "Maximal number of request virt queues to use for blk device. 0 value means no limitation");
>
> is that ok ?
Looks ok. And then do we need to limit this to nr_cpu_ids?
Setting a value that's too high seems harmless ...
> > > > > The actual value of the created queues can be seen in /sys/block/vda/mq/ as
> > > > > done today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static int major;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static DEFINE_IDA(vd_index_ida);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -501,7 +517,9 @@ static int init_vq(struct virtio_blk *vblk)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (err)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > num_vqs = 1;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - num_vqs = min_t(unsigned int, nr_cpu_ids, num_vqs);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + num_vqs = min_t(unsigned int,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + min_not_zero(num_io_queues, nr_cpu_ids),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + num_vqs);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you respin, please consider calling them request queues. That's the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology from the VIRTIO spec and it's nice to keep it consistent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the purpose of num_io_queues is clear, so:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static unsigned int num_io_request_queues;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +module_param_cb(num_io_request_queues, &queue_count_ops, &num_io_request_queues, 0644);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(num_io_request_queues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + "Limit number of IO request virt queues to use for each device. 0 for now limit");
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The parameter is writable and can be changed and then new devices might be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > probed with new value.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It can't be zero in the code. we can change param_set_uint_minmax args and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > say that 0 says nr_cpus.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm ok with the renaming but I prefer to stick to the description we gave in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > V3 of this patch (and maybe enable value of 0 as mentioned above).
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, israelr@nvidia.com,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, hch@infradead.org,
nitzanc@nvidia.com, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
oren@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] virtio-blk: add num_io_queues module parameter
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 05:50:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210912054959-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f58f955e-ef27-fba1-7417-8d37a175e872@nvidia.com>
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 12:37:26PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>
> On 9/12/2021 12:07 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 03:56:45PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > On 9/10/2021 1:57 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 07:45:42PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > On 9/9/2021 7:31 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 06:51:56PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > > > On 9/9/2021 6:40 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 06:37:37PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 9/9/2021 4:42 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 02:59:40PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 9/6/2021 2:20 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 01:31:32AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/5/2021 7:02 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 02:45:52PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 04:50:35PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sometimes a user would like to control the amount of IO queues to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created for a block device. For example, for limiting the memory
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > footprint of virtio-blk devices.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes from v1:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - use param_set_uint_minmax (from Christoph)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - added "Should > 0" to module description
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note: This commit apply on top of Jens's branch for-5.15/drivers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 4b49df2dfd23..9332fc4e9b31 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -24,6 +24,22 @@
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* The maximum number of sg elements that fit into a virtqueue */
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #define VIRTIO_BLK_MAX_SG_ELEMS 32768
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static int virtblk_queue_count_set(const char *val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + const struct kernel_param *kp)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + return param_set_uint_minmax(val, kp, 1, nr_cpu_ids);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm which tree is this for?
> > > > > > > > > > > I've mentioned in the note that it apply on branch for-5.15/drivers. But now
> > > > > > > > > > > you can apply it on linus/master as well.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static const struct kernel_param_ops queue_count_ops = {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + .set = virtblk_queue_count_set,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + .get = param_get_uint,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +};
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static unsigned int num_io_queues;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +module_param_cb(num_io_queues, &queue_count_ops, &num_io_queues, 0644);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(num_io_queues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + "Number of IO virt queues to use for blk device. Should > 0");
> > > > > > > > > > > > better:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(num_io_request_queues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > + "Limit number of IO request virt queues to use for each device. 0 for now limit");
> > > > > > > > > > > You proposed it and I replied on it bellow.
> > > > > > > > > > Can't say I understand 100% what you are saying. Want to send
> > > > > > > > > > a description that does make sense to you but
> > > > > > > > > > also reflects reality? 0 is the default so
> > > > > > > > > > "should > 0" besides being ungrammatical does not seem t"
> > > > > > > > > > reflect what it does ...
> > > > > > > > > if you "modprobe virtio_blk" the previous behavior will happen.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You can't "modprobe virtio_blk num_io_request_queues=0" since the minimal
> > > > > > > > > value is 1.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So your description is not reflecting the code.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We can do:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(num_io_request_queues, "Number of request virt queues to use for blk device. Minimum value is 1 queue");
> > > > > > > > What's the default value? We should document that.
> > > > > > > default value for static global variables is 0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(num_io_request_queues, "Number of request virt queues to
> > > > > > > use for blk device. Minimum value is 1 queue. Default and Maximum value is
> > > > > > > equal to the total number of CPUs");
> > > > > > So it says it's the # of cpus but yoiu inspect it with
> > > > > > sysfs and it's actually 0. Let's say that's confusing
> > > > > > at the least. why not just let users set it to 0
> > > > > > and document that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Setting it by the user to 0 makes no sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can say "if not set, the value equals to the total number of CPUs".
> > > > the value is 0. it seems to mean "no limit". the actual # of queues is
> > > > then te smaller between # of cpus and # of hardware queues.
> > > > I see no reason not to allow user to set that especially if
> > > > it was originally the value then user changed it
> > > > and is trying to change it back.
> > > I fine with that.
> > >
> > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(num_io_request_queues, "Number of request virt queues to use for blk device. 0 value means no limitation");
> > >
> > OK and the second distinction is that it's a limit on the
> > number, not the actual number. It's never more than what's provided
> > by the hypervisor.
>
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(num_io_request_queues, "Maximal number of request virt queues to use for blk device. 0 value means no limitation");
>
> is that ok ?
Looks ok. And then do we need to limit this to nr_cpu_ids?
Setting a value that's too high seems harmless ...
> > > > > The actual value of the created queues can be seen in /sys/block/vda/mq/ as
> > > > > done today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static int major;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static DEFINE_IDA(vd_index_ida);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -501,7 +517,9 @@ static int init_vq(struct virtio_blk *vblk)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (err)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > num_vqs = 1;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - num_vqs = min_t(unsigned int, nr_cpu_ids, num_vqs);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + num_vqs = min_t(unsigned int,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + min_not_zero(num_io_queues, nr_cpu_ids),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + num_vqs);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you respin, please consider calling them request queues. That's the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology from the VIRTIO spec and it's nice to keep it consistent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the purpose of num_io_queues is clear, so:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static unsigned int num_io_request_queues;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +module_param_cb(num_io_request_queues, &queue_count_ops, &num_io_request_queues, 0644);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(num_io_request_queues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + "Limit number of IO request virt queues to use for each device. 0 for now limit");
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The parameter is writable and can be changed and then new devices might be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > probed with new value.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It can't be zero in the code. we can change param_set_uint_minmax args and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > say that 0 says nr_cpus.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm ok with the renaming but I prefer to stick to the description we gave in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > V3 of this patch (and maybe enable value of 0 as mentioned above).
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-12 9:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-31 13:50 [PATCH v2 1/1] virtio-blk: add num_io_queues module parameter Max Gurtovoy
2021-09-01 5:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-01 5:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-02 13:45 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2021-09-02 13:45 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2021-09-05 16:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-05 16:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-05 22:31 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-09-06 11:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-06 11:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-06 11:59 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-09-09 13:42 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-09 13:42 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-09 15:37 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-09-09 15:40 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-09 15:40 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-09 15:51 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-09-09 16:31 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-09 16:31 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-09 16:45 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-09-09 22:57 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-09 22:57 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-11 12:56 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-09-12 9:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-12 9:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-12 9:37 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-09-12 9:50 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2021-09-12 9:50 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-12 10:33 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-09-12 11:45 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-12 11:45 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-13 14:23 ` Max Gurtovoy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210912054959-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=israelr@nvidia.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgurtovoy@nvidia.com \
--cc=nitzanc@nvidia.com \
--cc=oren@nvidia.com \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.