On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 06:43:17PM +0200, 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? > > /P Yes I'll rebase it soon.
