Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 0/7] Add PFCP filter support

From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>
To: Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
	Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Cc: jiri@resnulli.us, wojciech.drewek@intel.com, idosch@nvidia.com,
	jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik@linux.intel.com>,
	Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
	michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net,
	intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 0/7] Add PFCP filter support
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 10:04:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <978883c1-ffaa-413f-87f9-1956108f0d60@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG_fn=XOguL_++vJk2kFQoxu1msLzFBB5sJiD8Jxr4oUZ7qZ7g@mail.gmail.com>

From: Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 17:16:09 +0100

> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 4:57 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> + Alexander Potapenko
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 01:47:01PM +0100, Alexander Lobakin wrote:

[...]

>>> Hey Yury,
>>>
>>> Given that PFCP will be resent in the next window...
>>>
>>> Your "boys" tree is in fact self-contained -- those are mostly
>>> optimizations and cleanups, and for the new API -- bitmap_{read,write}()
>>> -- it has internal users (after "bitmap: make bitmap_{get,set}_value8()
>>> use bitmap_{read,write}()"). IOW, I don't see a reason for not merging
>>> it into your main for-next tree (this week :p).
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> I think that there's already enough mess with this patch. Alexander
>> submitted new version of his MTE series together with the patch.
> 
> Yeah, sorry about that. Because the MTE part of the patches was still
> awaiting review, I thought it would be better to land the bitmap API
> separately, but as you pointed out there should be at least one user
> for it, which it wouldn't have in that case.
> 
> I don't have a strong preference about whether to submit the patches
> before or after the end of year - in fact I don't think they are
> urgent enough, and we'd better postpone them till January.
> 
> So unless Alexander has urgent fixes depending on my bitmap patches,
> I'd suggest waiting till they are taken via the arm64 tree.

No, nothing urgent. Sounds good, no need to rush at the end of the dev
cycle.

> 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZXtciaxTKFBiui%2FX@yury-ThinkPad/T/
>>
>> Now you're asking me to merge it separately. I don't want to undercut
>> arm64 folks.
>>
>> Can you guys decide what you want? If you want to move
>> bitmap_read/write() with my branch, I need to send it in -next for
>> testing ASAP. And for that, as I already said, I need at least one
>> active user in current kernel tree. (Yes, bitmap_get_value8() counts.)
>>
>> If you want to move it this way, please resend all the patches
>> together.

[...]

Thanks,
Olek
_______________________________________________
Intel-wired-lan mailing list
Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan