Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 0/9] virtio: introduce GSO over UDP tunnel

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 07:00:19PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 7/8/25 6:43 PM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On 7/8/25 6:00 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 08:24:04AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 11:01:30 -0400 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>>> git@github.com:pabeni/linux-devel.git virtio_udp_tunnel_07_07_2025
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The first 5 patches in this series, that is, the virtio features
> >>>>> extension bits are also available at [2]:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> git@github.com:pabeni/linux-devel.git virtio_features_extension_07_07_2025
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ideally the virtio features extension bit should go via the virtio tree
> >>>>> and the virtio_net/tun patches via the net-next tree. The latter have
> >>>>> a dependency in the first and will cause conflicts if merged via the
> >>>>> virtio tree, both when applied and at merge window time - inside Linus
> >>>>> tree.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To avoid such conflicts and duplicate commits I think the net-next
> >>>>> could pull from [1], while the virtio tree could pull from [2].  
> >>>>
> >>>> Or I could just merge all of this in my tree, if that's ok
> >>>> with others?
> >>>
> >>> No strong preference here. My first choice would be a branch based
> >>> on v6.16-rc5 so we can all pull in and resolve the conflicts that
> >>> already exist. But I haven't looked how bad the conflicts would 
> >>> be for virtio if we did that. On net-next side they look manageable.
> >>
> >> OK, let's do it the way Paolo wants then.
> > 
> > I actually messed a bit with my proposal, as I forgot I need to use a
> > common ancestor for the branches I shared.
> > 
> > git@github.com:pabeni/linux-devel.git virtio_features_extension_07_07_2025
> > 
> > is based on current net-next and pulling from such tag will take a lot
> > of unwanted stuff into the vhost tree.
> > 
> > @Michael: AFAICS the current vhost devel tree is based on top of
> > v6.15-rc7, am I correct?
> 
> Which in turn means that you rebase your tree (before sending the PR to
> Linus), am I correct? If so we can't have stable hashes shared between
> net-next and vhost.
> 
> /P

We can, I can merge your tree after rebasing. It's a hassle if I rebase
repeatedly but I've been known to do it.

If this is what you want, pls just base on some recent RC by Linus.

-- 
MST