On Jul 7 12:10, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 17:32 +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 09.06.2020 um 16:18 hat Philippe Mathieu-Daudé geschrieben: > > > On 6/9/20 4:14 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > > Am 09.06.2020 um 13:46 hat Klaus Jensen geschrieben: > > > > > On Jun 9 13:17, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > > > > > On 6/9/20 11:45 AM, Klaus Jensen wrote: > > > > > > > From: Klaus Jensen <k.jen...@samsung.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I goofed up with commit c09794fe40e3 ("hw/block/nvme: allow use > > > > > > > of any > > > > > > > valid msix vector"). > > > > > > > > > > > > Kevin, since your queue isn't merged, can you directly squash the > > > > > > fix? > > > > > > > > > > The commit (c09794fe40e3) can just be dropped without conflicts, but > > > > > it > > > > > leaves a use of n->params.num_queues in nvme_create_cq() which commit > > > > > cde74bfd4b87 ("hw/block/nvme: add max_ioqpairs device parameter") must > > > > > fix. > > > > > > > > Hm, so it seems this isn't easy to squash in without conflicts (and I > > > > would have to rewrite the whole commit message), so I think it's better > > > > to just apply the series on top. > > > > > > > > One problem with the commit message is that it references commit IDs > > > > which aren't stable yet. Maybe it's best if I apply these patches, > > > > manually fix up the commit ID references and then immediately do a pull > > > > request so that they become stable. > > > > > > This is the friendlier way. > > > > > > Less friendly way is to drop Klaus's patches and ask him to respin. > > > While this is a valid outcome, if we can avoid it it will save all of us > > > review time. > > > > If Klaus wants to do that, fine with me. I'm just trying to find the > > easiest solution for all of us. > > > > > > It would be good to have at least one review, though. > > > > > > Maxim catched this issue, I'd feel safer if he acks your pre-merge queue. > > > > Ok. Maxim, can you please review this series then? > > > > Kevin > I am slowly getting through the heap of the patches trying to understand the > current state of things. > I will start reviewing all these patches today. > Hi Maxim,
Yeah, I bombed it again; sorry! ;) "[PATCH v3 00/18] hw/block/nvme: bump to v1.3" is the series currently under review. I also posted: [PATCH 00/17] hw/block/nvme: AIO and address mapping refactoring, [PATCH 0/2] hw/block/nvme: handle transient dma errors [PATCH 0/3] hw/block/nvme: support scatter gather lists [PATCH 0/4] hw/block/nvme: support multiple namespaces [PATCH] hw/block/nvme: make lba data size configurable [PATCH] hw/block/nvme: add support for dulbe [PATCH 0/3] hw/block/nvme: bump to v1.4 [PATCH 00/10] hw/block/nvme: namespace types and zoned namespaces I really appreciate you reviewing! Your R-b's are on a lot of the patches already, thanks for that!