Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] s390/vfio-ccw rework

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

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@linux.ibm.com/

> 
> 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.