[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20250214010247.4071303-1-junnan01.wu@samsung.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:02:47 +0800
From: Junnan Wu <junnan01.wu@...sung.com>
To: sgarzare@...hat.com
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, eperezma@...hat.com,
horms@...nel.org, jasowang@...hat.com, junnan01.wu@...sung.com,
kuba@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, lei19.wang@...sung.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, q1.huang@...sung.com, stefanha@...hat.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com,
ying01.gao@...sung.com, ying123.xu@...sung.com
Subject: Re: Re: [Patch net 1/2] vsock/virtio: initialize rx_buf_nr and
rx_buf_max_nr when resuming
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 at 15:47, Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com> wrote:
>I forgot to mention that IMHO it's better to split this series.
>This first patch (this one) seems ready, without controversy, and it's
>a real fix, so for me v3 should be a version ready to be merged.
>
>While the other patch is more controversial and especially not a fix
>but more of a new feature, so I don't think it makes sense to continue
>to have these two patches in a single series.
>
>Thanks,
>Stefano
Well, I agree with you that these two patches should be splited.
And I will send v3 version of the first patch individually.
And according to our discussion, the second one can be ignored, until
we find a suitable way to deal the scenario I metionded.
Thanks,
Junnan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists