Re: [PATCH 0/1] hw/block/nvme: fix assert on invalid irq vector

[Klaus Jensen <its@irrelevant.dk>]

On Jul  7 12:10, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 17:32 +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 09.06.2020 um 16:18 hat Philippe Mathieu-Daudé geschrieben:
> > > On 6/9/20 4:14 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > > Am 09.06.2020 um 13:46 hat Klaus Jensen geschrieben:
> > > > > On Jun  9 13:17, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > > > > On 6/9/20 11:45 AM, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Klaus Jensen <k.jensen@samsung.com>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I goofed up with commit c09794fe40e3 ("hw/block/nvme: allow use of any
> > > > > > > valid msix vector").
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Kevin, since your queue isn't merged, can you directly squash the fix?
> > > > > 
> > > > > The commit (c09794fe40e3) can just be dropped without conflicts, but it
> > > > > leaves a use of n->params.num_queues in nvme_create_cq() which commit
> > > > > cde74bfd4b87 ("hw/block/nvme: add max_ioqpairs device parameter") must
> > > > > fix.
> > > > 
> > > > Hm, so it seems this isn't easy to squash in without conflicts (and I
> > > > would have to rewrite the whole commit message), so I think it's better
> > > > to just apply the series on top.
> > > > 
> > > > One problem with the commit message is that it references commit IDs
> > > > which aren't stable yet. Maybe it's best if I apply these patches,
> > > > manually fix up the commit ID references and then immediately do a pull
> > > > request so that they become stable.
> > > 
> > > This is the friendlier way.
> > > 
> > > Less friendly way is to drop Klaus's patches and ask him to respin.
> > > While this is a valid outcome, if we can avoid it it will save all of us
> > > review time.
> > 
> > If Klaus wants to do that, fine with me. I'm just trying to find the
> > easiest solution for all of us.
> > 
> > > > It would be good to have at least one review, though.
> > > 
> > > Maxim catched this issue, I'd feel safer if he acks your pre-merge queue.
> > 
> > Ok. Maxim, can you please review this series then?
> > 
> > Kevin
> I am slowly getting through the heap of the patches trying to understand the current state of things.
> I will start reviewing all these patches today.
> 
 
Hi Maxim,

Yeah, I bombed it again; sorry! ;)

"[PATCH v3 00/18] hw/block/nvme: bump to v1.3" is the series currently
under review.

I also posted:

  [PATCH 00/17] hw/block/nvme: AIO and address mapping refactoring,
  [PATCH 0/2] hw/block/nvme: handle transient dma errors
  [PATCH 0/3] hw/block/nvme: support scatter gather lists
  [PATCH 0/4] hw/block/nvme: support multiple namespaces
  [PATCH] hw/block/nvme: make lba data size configurable
  [PATCH] hw/block/nvme: add support for dulbe
  [PATCH 0/3] hw/block/nvme: bump to v1.4
  [PATCH 00/10] hw/block/nvme: namespace types and zoned namespaces

I really appreciate you reviewing! Your R-b's are on a lot of the
patches already, thanks for that!