On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 09:16:07AM +0000, Dragos Tatulea wrote: > On Mon, 2023-12-04 at 03:55 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 08:53:26AM +0000, Dragos Tatulea wrote: > > > On Sun, 2023-12-03 at 11:23 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 03, 2023 at 03:21:01PM +0000, Dragos Tatulea wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2023-12-02 at 15:26 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 12:48:50PM +0200, Dragos Tatulea wrote: > > > > > > > Add support for resumable vqs in the driver. This is a firmware > > > > > > > feature > > > > > > > that can be used for the following benefits: > > > > > > > - Full device .suspend/.resume. > > > > > > > - .set_map doesn't need to destroy and create new vqs anymore > > > > > > > just to > > > > > > > update the map. When resumable vqs are supported it is enough to > > > > > > > suspend the vqs, set the new maps, and then resume the vqs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first patch exposes the relevant bits in mlx5_ifc.h. That > > > > > > > means it > > > > > > > needs to be applied to the mlx5-vhost tree [0] first. > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get this. Why does this need to go through that tree? > > > > > > Is there a dependency on some other commit from that tree? > > > > > > > > > > > To avoid merge issues in Linus's tree in mlx5_ifc.h. The idea is the > > > > > same as for > > > > > the "vq descriptor mappings" patchset [1]. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Dragos > > > > > > > > Are there other changes in that area that will cause non-trivial merge > > > > conflicts? > > > > > > > There are pending changes in mlx5_ifc.h for net-next. I haven't seen any > > > changes > > > around the touched structure but I would prefer not to take any risk. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Dragos > > > > This is exactly what linux-next is for. > > > Not sure what the suggestion is here. Is it: > > 1) To post patch 1/7 to net-next? Then we'd have to wait for a few weeks to > make > sure that it gets into the next tree. > > or > > 2) To apply it into the vhost tree directly? Then we run the risk of having > merge issues. > > The "pull from branch" approach for cross subsystem changes was suggested by > Linus this merge issue. > > [0] > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFxxoO=i7negbrgw_afhssz7k-x6fmo8v-8po3ls_ew...@mail.gmail.com/ > > Thanks, > Dragos
I will park this in my tree for now so it can get testing in linux next. When it's available in some other tree as well, let me know and I'll figure it out. -- MST
