[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4bd1d414-3f69-44d5-bb41-c44509b38f89@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 09:32:20 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Wei Huang <wei.huang2@....com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, corbet@....net,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
alex.williamson@...hat.com, gospo@...adcom.com, ajit.khaparde@...adcom.com,
somnath.kotur@...adcom.com, andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com,
manoj.panicker2@....com, Eric.VanTassell@....com, vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev,
horms@...nel.org, bagasdotme@...il.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
lukas@...ner.de, paul.e.luse@...el.com, jing2.liu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 0/5] TPH and cache direct injection support
On 10/3/24 00:08, Michael Chan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 2:35 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
>> I tentatively applied this on pci/tph for v6.13.
>>
>> Not sure what you intend for the bnxt changes, since they depend on
>> the PCI core changes. I'm happy to merge them via PCI, given acks
>> from Michael and an overall network maintainer.
>
> The bnxt patch can go in through the PCI tree if Jakub agrees. Thanks.
I guess the most critical point is to avoid complex conflict at merge
window time. My understanding it that the conventional way to avoid such
issue would be sharing a stable branch somewhere with this change on top
which both the netdev and the PCI tree could pull from.
Cheers,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists