Re: [PATCH 1/5] vfio: ccw: Merge BUSY and BOXED states

Re: [PATCH 1/5] vfio: ccw: Merge BUSY and BOXED states

[Pierre Morel]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 507 bytes --]

On 17/10/2018 22:01, Eric Farman wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/17/2018 05:18 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> VFIO_CCW_STATE_BOXED and VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY have
>> identical actions for the same events.
>>
>> Let's merge both into a single state to simplify the code.
>> We choose to keep VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
> 
> I like this.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com>
> 
>> --

Thanks,

Pierre


-- 
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in B�blingen - Germany

Re: [PATCH 1/5] vfio: ccw: Merge BUSY and BOXED states

[Pierre Morel]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 870 bytes --]

On 26/11/2018 15:53, Eric Farman wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/19/2018 06:30 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:18:39 +0200
>> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, I've created a new vfio-ccw-staging branch where I plan to
>> collect patches prior to putting together a pull request. (I assume I'm
>> still the only vfio-ccw maintainer with a kernel.org account, right?)
> 
> So far as I know.� I can ask around here and see if that should change.
> 
>> The idea is that this branch can collect patches that are fine but are
>> targeted to a later release (fixes would still go via the normal
>> vfio-ccw branch.) Let me know whether that sounds reasonable.
> 
> This sounds fine to me.� Thank you!
> 
>  �- Eric
> 

Forgot to answer but already using your branch.

Thanks,
Pierre

-- 
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in B�blingen - Germany