RE: [PATCH v8 07/10] hyper-v: globalize vp_index

From	Jork Loeser <Jork.Loeser@microsoft.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	RE: [PATCH v8 07/10] hyper-v: globalize vp_index
Date	2017-06-14 06:40 +0200
Message-ID	<tS8g1-vc-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<tQs9c-22p-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <tQs9c-22p-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tS3q1-5Rb-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tS6ed-7FK-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

> From: Vitaly Kuznetsov [mailto:vkuznets@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 19:29
> 
> Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> writes:
> 
> > On Fri,  9 Jun 2017 15:27:33 +0200
> > Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> To support implementing remote TLB flushing on Hyper-V with a
> >> hypercall we need to make vp_index available outside of vmbus module.
> >> Rename and globalize.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
> >
> > This is correct, but needs to be rebased.
> > It conflicts with the PCI protocol version 1.2 patches that are in the
> > PCI tree.
> 
> :-(
> 
> The question is - what do we do? As far as I understand the intent was to push
> this through Greg's char-misc tree. If I rebase it to Bjorn's pci tree patches won't
> apply to char-misc and Greg won't take them. I see three possible ways to go:
> 1) Take them into char-misc and resolve the conflict in merge window (Linus will
> hate us all :-( )
> 2) Ask Greg to merge with Bjorn _now_ so we can send the rebased version.
> 3) Postpone these patches to the next kernel release. No guarantee we won't
> clash with something else :-(
> 
> So I'm a bit lost. With Hyper-V drivers scattered across multiple trees we're
> doomed to have such issues with every relatively big series.

I would like to see Vitaly's patch-set being integrated shortly (option 1).

In anticipation of this, the PCI protocol version 1.2 patches duplicate the CPU-ID/vCPU-ID mapping. The conflict thus is "just" a re-naming conflict - taking either old or new is fine (one occurrence of conflict). Is this acceptable for conflict management without instilling undue despise?

That said, I am more than happy to help in the resolution. Also, once both changes are merged, I'll remove the duplicated logic.

Regards,
Jork

Thread

[PATCH v8 07/10] hyper-v: globalize vp_index Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> - 2017-06-09 15:30 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v8 07/10] hyper-v: globalize vp_index Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> - 2017-06-14 01:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v8 07/10] hyper-v: globalize vp_index Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> - 2017-06-14 04:30 +0200
      RE: [PATCH v8 07/10] hyper-v: globalize vp_index Jork Loeser <Jork.Loeser@microsoft.com> - 2017-06-14 06:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v8 07/10] hyper-v: globalize vp_index Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> - 2017-06-14 18:20 +0200

csiph-web