[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220420070800.GB4417@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:08:00 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: "Wang, Zhi A" <zhi.a.wang@...el.com>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Vivi, Rodrigo" <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>,
"intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org"
<intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: refactor the i915 GVT support and move to the modern mdev API
v3
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 11:38:59AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> pull requests can flow through more than one tree concurrently. The
> purpose of the topic branch is to allow all the commits to be in all
> the trees they need to be in at once.
>
> So you should send this branch as a PR to the next logical upstream
> tree gvt patches normally go through, in the usual way that you send
> PRs. Especially in this case where there is a small merge conflict
> internal to DRM to resolve. I'm assuming this is the drm-intel-next
> tree?
>
> Once DRM is internally happy then VFIO can merge it as well. You can
> view VFIO as the secondary path to Linus, DRM as primary. Alex will
> mention in his pull request that VFIO has a 'shared branch with DRM
> for gvt'.
Where do we stand here? The (somewhat misnamed) topic/for-christoph
branch looks fine to me now except for the mÑ–ssing "static inline" on
the intel_gvt_iterate_mmio_table stub.
When can we expect it in the i915 tree and linux-next?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists