From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C59592BD597 for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2026 16:35:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767371727; cv=none; b=En3bFZMFIP9RbTHiF3kQUs5QO80imLTogr+A/CJwz7LqfZbcVnn57xPfnzNUbfG9U2wjXVjnvFlLKfC6nv86ROBHMmGsnY92vsneJ0bthLDEmBsLucMrvsb+oVydJwZgtMzFj/89WE70OQxDiRqiXoEDiy87tBtWPiwF0W3r8SI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767371727; c=relaxed/simple; bh=k0J631j3cFA+6kWbYZAtvC2FCq7uXkRMQQ5N3txfl5Q=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=PJmqAF7afLsh2qzBWrpjQnGYvKFfzSl/2vbAJaNcgYLXS+rlBe6L3QQMLSLN6k1lAkYcaVxA8jhKBA0TNQVbBJXua1wCzcXEsnru1KtkViMRVCjVfObxEkKgtWBeLzDzZOOKEQYCQGOSrWxEhYk43W4zo7eCbSo3g362zR2IEcg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.224.83]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4djTmf2TRdzJ467L; Sat, 3 Jan 2026 00:34:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from dubpeml100005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.214.146.113]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1430540086; Sat, 3 Jan 2026 00:35:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.122.19.247) by dubpeml100005.china.huawei.com (7.214.146.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.36; Fri, 2 Jan 2026 16:35:21 +0000 Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2026 16:35:19 +0000 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Davidlohr Bueso CC: Jonathan Cameron via , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 -qemu 0/5] hw/cxl: Support Back-Invalidate Message-ID: <20260102163519.00005de4@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <20251230182330.upui2kkymnlylkh2@offworld> References: <20251103195209.1319917-1-dave@stgolabs.net> <20251216011211.anwnw25ot6n3euhq@offworld> <20251217135930.00004616@huawei.com> <20251223115325.00000a36@huawei.com> <20251230182330.upui2kkymnlylkh2@offworld> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500009.china.huawei.com (7.191.174.84) To dubpeml100005.china.huawei.com (7.214.146.113) On Tue, 30 Dec 2025 10:23:30 -0800 Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Tue, 23 Dec 2025, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > >On Wed, 17 Dec 2025 13:59:30 +0000 > >Jonathan Cameron via wrote: > > > >Seems the release has been tagged, so I've just rebased and pushed > >out a draft tree as cxl-2025-12-23-draft > >Draft because it is very very lightly tested so far. > > Thank you for picking this up, 'draft' is fine with me :) > However, I am not seeing this new branch in your tree(?) Hi Davidlohr, Happy new year. Hmm. Could have sworn I pushed i out... Guess messed that up :( Note there is a stray change in there for an unrelated tests tree that I've tidied up in my local tree. I'll push a new tree out next week but assuming this series isn't otherwise messed up by me, I'd like to email this out as something I think is ready to merge before I do that. If you spot anything bad with this I might shuffle things around to put the physical port commands set ahead of it. Jonathan > > > > >On that I've merged in these patches with a few tweaks + added the > >table test updates. If you get a minute to take a look please do. > > > >It's behind a couple of left over series from earlier cycles but my > >intent is to post it for reviews prior to merge shortly. That > >may not include in the restrictions control qapi as I think that interface > >may need more thought. For now I've added a patch that just enables > >BI always for CFMWSes. > > Makes sense. > > Thanks, > Davidlohr >