Re: [PATCH net-next v9 03/14] vsock/virtio: add netns support to virtio transport and virtio common

[Bobby Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 06:39:22PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 08:13:50AM -0800, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 03:18:42PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:54:45PM -0800, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> > > > From: Bobby Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@meta.com>

[...]

> > > If it simplifies, I think we can eventually merge all changes to transports
> > > that depends on virtio_transport_common in a single commit.
> > > IMO is better to have working commits than better split.
> > 
> > That would be so much easier. Much of this patch is just me trying to
> > find a way to keep total patch size reasonably small for review... if
> > having them all in one commit is preferred then that makes life easier.
> > 
> > The answer to all of the above is that I was just trying to make the
> > virtio_common changes in one place, but not break bisect/build by
> > failing to update the transport-level call sites. So the placeholder
> > values are primarily there to compile.
> 
> In theory, they should compile, but they should also properly behave.
> 
> BTW I strongly believe that having separate commits is a great thing, but we
> shouldn't take things to extremes and complicate our lives when things are
> too closely related, as in this case.
> 
> There is a clear dependency between these patches, so IMO, if the patch
> doesn't become huge, it's better to have everything together. (I mean
> between dependencies with virtio_transport_common).
 
Sounds good, let's give the combined commit a go, I think the
transport-specific pieces are small enough for it to not balloon? 

> What we could perhaps do is have an initial commit where you make the
> changes, but the behavior remains unchanged (continue to use global
> everywhere, as for virtio_transport.c in this patch), and then specific
> commits to just enable support for local/global.
> 
> Not sure if it's doable, but I'd like to remove the placeholders if
> possibile. Let's discuss more about it if there are issues.

Sounds good, I'll come back to this thread if the combined commit
approach above balloons. For the combined commit, should the change log
start at "Changes in v10" with any new changes, mention combining +
links to the v9 patches that were combined?

Best,
Bobby