From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.12]) (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 2071024B28; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 17:13:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.12 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732122820; cv=none; b=BoCdedQvxlnwHsK4hOV7UhKVieVn3NMBUdBQ15uwZFCdoHGLcI9XGUA8nM/P9Xo+yruZxp8b+XWYTAHU/+JUWBj05cq//zvB5+vNaeTqOfPI5Iz9rO0jW9jsQREM2k50eSoML9c1FhQaVU4nwut0zumeP9j5pETEFHMyfwsvSFo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732122820; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/1hZo+1vKMNvcfwFv9WQw8lUg2hIjCFIbJikQXtqLTc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=VC71HMoVduQFDb9XPvI7Z5rwyl84tJt923eBZvIwVdLHrvXZKpRwg4kgP84u/waP7gLvl1fRtwEZp2FeMUZpCiAM/iGIw8s+KsM9LmLiPI1fzcElBAmX3fsK21ltmVi9d5t/JQgMzczaA8U5QND8WtgECM/1B+1rmACkBeGqHI8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=Nh2d7bSf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.12 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="Nh2d7bSf" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1732122818; x=1763658818; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:references:from: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/1hZo+1vKMNvcfwFv9WQw8lUg2hIjCFIbJikQXtqLTc=; b=Nh2d7bSfKZzXntSrBOoiurh+h9PVaOyqF7hvhpJUbl0ZpthrPidtMQ2I 6kwxNcS1ViQyzTxKLfAibu+kasP+YzkbJ7nIWhrQWnbt7XrWZVnft5NnE Erv2MpyQhKtNSn2l6VyGviF6KV26jllFhdcLGYl7AgF6uOJWOQiMjxT3P AKFZVsXwBdsa/mMmdgtFPyCJijMaO8kCN20heS05jwJs6/dZaTuY6JbqQ eg7sXlO/90FL1oHuMd84DgI5X9mh8xyTZvv/rDNNXbJY2WxVLgMhs9as1 BhY3HaMJcoo3mPo6h7MF434FG7bvlUP2BZJz2b+22NdBT2C+wnONqj/Nq g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: ZXy7kK1kTg2uYG8aKWTCjA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: XqbFbB4PTJSw/DjCnENlNA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11262"; a="36109802" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,170,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="36109802" Received: from fmviesa004.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.144]) by fmvoesa106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Nov 2024 09:13:11 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: nixXk+oPStyJnMT/xeWwMQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: eWiXwDYRR9KnLo8uEJpnOg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,170,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="94794513" Received: from bmurrell-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.125.109.160]) ([10.125.109.160]) by fmviesa004-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Nov 2024 09:13:09 -0800 Message-ID: <5624f840-0496-40bd-b6ec-8fb253565a84@intel.com> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 10:13:07 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Should the CXL Type2 support patchset be split up? To: Alejandro Lucero Palau , Paolo Abeni , alejandro.lucero-palau@amd.com, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, martin.habets@xilinx.com, edward.cree@amd.com, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, Jonathan Cameron References: <20241017165225.21206-1-alejandro.lucero-palau@amd.com> <86522c97-350c-9319-6930-01f97a490578@amd.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dave Jiang In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/20/24 9:50 AM, Alejandro Lucero Palau wrote: > Hi all, > > > Facing Paolo's question again trying to involve CXL and (more) netdev maintainers. > > > Next v6 could have two different patchsets, one for cxl, one for netdev. The current patchset has already cleanly isolated sfc netdev patches, so it is trivial. > > The main question is if CXL maintainers will be happy with this change as the sfc is the client justifying the CXL core changes. Also, the split could be delayed until all the patches get the Reviewed-by tag what is now only ~75% of them (sfc related patches without the public approval yet but internally obtained). Given that the series is dominantly CXL patches, my suggestion would be get the acks from netdev side and CXL can take the whole series without doing any splitting. That's been typically how it has been done with cross subsystem changes. i.e. ACPI+CXL etc. DJ > > Thanks, > > Alejandro > > > On 10/23/24 10:38, Alejandro Lucero Palau wrote: >> >> On 10/23/24 09:46, Paolo Abeni wrote: >>> I'm sorry for the late feedback, but which is the merge plan here? >>> >>> The series spawns across 2 different subsystems and could cause conflicts. >>> >>> Could the network device change be separated and send (to netdev) after >>> the clx ones land into Linus' tree? >> >> >> Hi Paolo, >> >> >> With v4 all sfc changes are different patches than those modifying CXL core, so I guess this is good for what you suggest. >> >> >> Not sure the implications for merging only some patches into the CXL tree. >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Alejandro >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Paolo >>>