linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the iommu tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7b10be49-f379-c586-d8fd-d67bb932fabd@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 May 2019 15:29:01 +0100
From:   Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@....com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lan Tianyu <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the iommu tree

On 12/05/2019 18:16, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:04:42AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:58:36AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> Even though it's not going into 5.1 I feel it's helpful to keep it in
>>> the vhost tree until the next cycle, it helps make sure unrelated
>>> changes don't break it.
>>
>> It is not going to 5.1, so it shouldn't be in linux-next, no? And when
>> it is going upstream, it should do so through the iommu tree. If you
>> keep it separatly in the vhost tree for testing purposes, please make
>> sure it is not included into your linux-next branch.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> 	Joerg
> 
> Joerg, what are we doing with these patches?
> It was tested in next with no bad effects.
> I sent an ack - do you want to pick it up?
> Or have me include it in my pull?

I'll resend the driver for v5.3 with some changes. They should be minor
but one of the changes (domain bits -> domain range) touches UAPI and
isn't backward compatible, so it would be better not to merge it this
time around.

Thanks,
Jean