lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 0/9] mmu notifier provide context informations
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:41 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 03:30:33PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:15:55PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:04 PM <jglisse@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
> > > >
> > > > Since last version [4] i added the extra bits needed for the change_pte
> > > > optimization (which is a KSM thing). Here i am not posting users of
> > > > this, they will be posted to the appropriate sub-systems (KVM, GPU,
> > > > RDMA, ...) once this serie get upstream. If you want to look at users
> > > > of this see [5] [6]. If this gets in 5.1 then i will be submitting
> > > > those users for 5.2 (including KVM if KVM folks feel comfortable with
> > > > it).
> > >
> > > The users look small and straightforward. Why not await acks and
> > > reviewed-by's for the users like a typical upstream submission and
> > > merge them together? Is all of the functionality of this
> > > infrastructure consumed by the proposed users? Last time I checked it
> > > was only a subset.
> >
> > Yes pretty much all is use, the unuse case is SOFT_DIRTY and CLEAR
> > vs UNMAP. Both of which i intend to use. The RDMA folks already ack
> > the patches IIRC, so did radeon and amdgpu. I believe the i915 folks
> > were ok with it too. I do not want to merge things through Andrew
> > for all of this we discussed that in the past, merge mm bits through
> > Andrew in one release and bits that use things in the next release.
>
> It is usually cleaner for everyone to split patches like this, for
> instance I always prefer to merge RDMA patches via RDMA when
> possible. Less conflicts.
>
> The other somewhat reasonable option is to get acks and send your own
> complete PR to Linus next week? That works OK for tree-wide changes.

Yes, I'm not proposing that they be merged together, instead I'm just
looking for the acked-by / reviewed-by tags even if those patches are
targeting the next merge window.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-19 21:50    [W:0.061 / U:4.692 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site