On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 05:18:45PM +0200, Albert Esteve wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 4:38 PM Albert Esteve <[email protected]> wrote: > > @@ -1836,6 +2054,19 @@ static gboolean backend_read(QIOChannel *ioc, > > GIOCondition condition, > > ret = vhost_user_backend_handle_shared_object_lookup(dev->opaque, > > ioc, > > &hdr, > > &payload); > > break; > > + case VHOST_USER_BACKEND_SHMEM_MAP: > > + /* Handler manages its own response, check error and close > > connection */ > > + if (vhost_user_backend_handle_shmem_map(dev, ioc, &hdr, &payload, > > + fd ? fd[0] : -1) < 0) { > > + goto err; > > + } > > + break; > > + case VHOST_USER_BACKEND_SHMEM_UNMAP: > > + /* Handler manages its own response, check error and close > > connection */ > > + if (vhost_user_backend_handle_shmem_unmap(dev, ioc, &hdr, > > &payload) < 0) { > > + goto err; > > + } > > + break; > > Once this patch lands: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2025-10/msg03932.html > These two handlers will need a `reply_ack = false;` before being > invoked. What's the best way to proceed in this case? > > If I can chose, I'd prefer to integrate this one first and then I can > rebase the one I linked and set the reply_ack where needed.
You can rebase ahead of time and add "Based-on: <message-id>" to the cover letter so the maintainer knows there is a dependency between the patch series. https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/devel/submitting-a-patch.html#id35 When sending the series that depends on another series, be careful to specify only the commit range from the end of the other series so that you don't include all the commits from the other series. That way reviewers aren't distracted by a bunch of other commits that are not part of this series. Summarizing: 1. Rebase your other series on this one. 2. Carefully send a new revision of your other series with only its commits (not the commits from this series) and add "Based-on: <message-id>" referencing this patch series by its Message-Id. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
