On 7/8/25 6:43 PM, Paolo Abeni wrote: > 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? Which in turn means that you rebase your tree (before sending the PR to Linus), am I correct? If so we can't have stable hashes shared between net-next and vhost. /P
