netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next V2 0/3] in order support for vhost-net

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7aeff791-f26c-4ae3-adaa-c25f3b98ba56@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 11:19:26 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, eperezma@...hat.com,
 kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jonah.palmer@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 0/3] in order support for vhost-net

On 7/18/25 4:04 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 9:52 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 7/17/25 8:01 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 1:55 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 10:03:00AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 8:04 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:47:52 +0800 Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>> This series implements VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER support for vhost-net. This
>>>>>>> feature is designed to improve the performance of the virtio ring by
>>>>>>> optimizing descriptor processing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Benchmarks show a notable improvement. Please see patch 3 for details.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You tagged these as net-next but just to be clear -- these don't apply
>>>>>> for us in the current form.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Will rebase and send a new version.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Indeed these look as if they are for my tree (so I put them in
>>>> linux-next, without noticing the tag).
>>>
>>> I think that's also fine.
>>>
>>> Do you prefer all vhost/vhost-net patches to go via your tree in the future?
>>>
>>> (Note that the reason for the conflict is because net-next gets UDP
>>> GSO feature merged).
>>
>> FTR, I thought that such patches should have been pulled into the vhost
>> tree, too. Did I miss something?
> 
> See: https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg1108896.html

I'm sorry I likely was not clear in my previous message. My question is:
any special reason to not pull the UDP tunnel GSO series into the vhost
tree, too?

Thanks,

Paolo