[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gyYPNL87YnCgg6E+NL_URZfiumyaVfe4jGv4XQ0oO=0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:35:09 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
"Dey, Megha" <megha.dey@...el.com>, maz@...nel.org,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
Yi L Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...el.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Sanjay K Kumar <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Jing Lin <jing.lin@...el.com>,
kwankhede@...dia.com, eric.auger@...hat.com, parav@...lanox.com,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, netanelg@...lanox.com,
shahafs@...lanox.com, yan.y.zhao@...ux.intel.com,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Samuel Ortiz <samuel.ortiz@...el.com>, mona.hossain@...el.com,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 00/18] Add VFIO mediated device support and DEV-MSI
support for the idxd driver
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 9:29 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 09:02:15AM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
> > v2:
>
> "RFC" to me means "I don't really think this is mergable, so I'm
> throwing it out there." Which implies you know it needs more work
> before others should review it as you are not comfortable with it :(
There's full blown reviewed-by from me on the irq changes. The VFIO /
mdev changes looked ok to me, but I did not feel comfortable / did not
have time to sign-off on them. At the same time I did not see much to
be gained to keeping those internal. So "RFC" in this case is a bit
modest. It's more internal reviewer said this looks like it is going
in the right direction, but wants more community discussion on the
approach.
> So, back-of-the-queue you go...
Let's consider this not RFC in that context. The drivers/base/ pieces
have my review for you, the rest are dmaengine and vfio subsystem
concerns that could use some commentary.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists