[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231027112013.GT3952@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 08:20:13 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: "Zhang, Tina" <tina.zhang@...el.com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>,
Michael Shavit <mshavit@...gle.com>,
Vasant Hegde <vasant.hegde@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/6] iommu: Change kconfig around IOMMU_SVA
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 09:14:17AM +0000, Zhang, Tina wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 08:05:20AM +0800, Tina Zhang wrote:
> > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> > > >
> > > > Linus suggested that the kconfig here is confusing:
> > >
> > > While this patch looks decent to me, you forgot to Cc Linus on it. In
> > > general, given that it touches a couple of core files, I'd like to
> > > wait for some more people to have a look at it and not rushing anything in.
> > Make sense. I'll CC Linus. Comments are welcome.
> Can we separate this patch? I'm thinking about CC more people for
> review. At least, we need to CC all the reviewers of
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230506133134.1492395-1-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com/
> to this patch. So, it seems more reasonable to separate this
> patch. What do you think?
I think that makes sense, let's go ahead with the rest of the SVA
series and we can do this next cycle. Bikeshedding config names isn't
really critical.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists