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

Christian Borntraeger
2022-07-07T13:04:41Z

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?

As an alternative: will the vfio patches build without the KVM patches and vice versa,
I assume not?