From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] xen pci backend driver. Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:58:50 -0700 Message-ID: <20110425115850.48b7d254@jbarnes-desktop> References: <1303333640-5994-1-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1303333640-5994-1-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, konrad@kernel.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:07:19 -0400 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > The following patch implements the Xen pci backend for upstream Linux. > This is the host side counterpart to the frontend driver in > drivers/pci/xen-pcifront.c. The PV protocol is also implemented by > frontend drivers in other OSes too, such as the BSDs. > > This driver has a long history as an out of tree driver but I am > submitting it here as a single monolithic patch to aid review. Once it > has been reviewed and is considered suitable for merging can we perhaps > consider merging the equivalent git branch which maintains much of > history? It looks pretty clean at first glance (though 128k worth of patch isn't an ideal way to split it). But maybe the back end belongs in arch/x86/xen as it's really a arch specific PCI implementation at heart? I don't want to be a bottleneck for any Xen specific PCI patches in the future, and other arches have a similar split (though not always with an ideal core vs arch split). Figuring out some way to preserve the git history is probably a good idea, assuming it's not too much of a mess. If it is, a more reasonable split and history using rebase could probably be contrived before merging it. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center