[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d8b1a0b5-2763-487a-a7d9-01355d608656@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:27:41 -0400
From: Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com>,
Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@...hat.com>,
Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/7] vhost-vdpa: VHOST_BACKEND_F_NEW_OWNER
On 7/14/2024 10:31 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 9:19 PM Steve Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Add the VHOST_BACKEND_F_NEW_OWNER backend capability, which indicates that
>> VHOST_NEW_OWNER is supported.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Steve Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>
>
> Doesn't harm but should this be part of the previous patch?
One developer's minimal logical change is another developer's gratuitous patch:)
IMO separating this one makes the VHOST_NEW_OWNER patch slightly easier to grok.
- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists