On 7/8/25 6:00 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 08:24:04AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 11:01:30 -0400 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>> git@xxxxxxxxxx:pabeni/linux-devel.git virtio_udp_tunnel_07_07_2025 >>>> >>>> The first 5 patches in this series, that is, the virtio features >>>> extension bits are also available at [2]: >>>> >>>> git@xxxxxxxxxx:pabeni/linux-devel.git virtio_features_extension_07_07_2025 >>>> >>>> Ideally the virtio features extension bit should go via the virtio tree >>>> and the virtio_net/tun patches via the net-next tree. The latter have >>>> a dependency in the first and will cause conflicts if merged via the >>>> virtio tree, both when applied and at merge window time - inside Linus >>>> tree. >>>> >>>> To avoid such conflicts and duplicate commits I think the net-next >>>> could pull from [1], while the virtio tree could pull from [2]. >>> >>> Or I could just merge all of this in my tree, if that's ok >>> with others? >> >> No strong preference here. My first choice would be a branch based >> on v6.16-rc5 so we can all pull in and resolve the conflicts that >> already exist. But I haven't looked how bad the conflicts would >> be for virtio if we did that. On net-next side they look manageable. > > OK, let's do it the way Paolo wants then. I actually messed a bit with my proposal, as I forgot I need to use a common ancestor for the branches I shared. git@xxxxxxxxxx:pabeni/linux-devel.git virtio_features_extension_07_07_2025 is based on current net-next and pulling from such tag will take a lot of unwanted stuff into the vhost tree. @Michael: AFAICS the current vhost devel tree is based on top of v6.15-rc7, am I correct? /P
