On 3/9/26 11:40 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 09/03/2026 15.00, Matthew Rosato wrote: >> On 3/8/26 8:35 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> From: Jared Rossi <[email protected]> >>> >>> This patch series introduces an IPLB subtype to support PCI devices, which >>> may >>> be built if a device has been assigned a boot index and is identified as a >>> PCI >>> device with a corresponding s390 PCI Bus device. >>> >>> Boot support is only added for virtio-blk-pci at this time and is limited to >>> devices with an assigned bootindex. >>> >>> A "loadparm" property is added to virtio-blk-pci boot devices on s390x. >>> >>> A simple test to check basic functionality is added to the cdrom-tests in >>> qtest. >>> >>> Changes v4 -> v5: >>> - Fix incorrect switch/case for virtio block device ID >>> - Use target_s390x() instead of qemu_arch_available(QEMU_ARCH_S390X) >>> - Properly denote switch fallthrough >>> - Remove reduntant RC checks in PCI read/write >>> >> >> Rather than reply to individual patches, I noticed new copyright lines with >> 2025 dates on the following patches that should be updated to 2026: >> >> 6: pc-bios/s390-ccw: Split virtio-ccw and generic virtio >> 8: pc-bios/s390-ccw: Introduce CLP Architecture >> 10: pc-bios/s390-ccw: Introduce PCI device >> 11: pc-bios/s390-ccw: Introduce virtio-pci functions >> >> Thomas, if there are no further comments would you still like Jared to >> respin for that kind of change or would you just fix up when you pick up the >> series? > > I've seen different opinions on the year in copyright statements in the past > (also from various people from IBM) - some say, it should be the year when > the code was written/initially posted, some say, it should be the year when > the code gets merged ... I personally don't mind too much anymore. For me, > it's also ok if we keep the 2025. > > Anyway, tomorrow (Tuesday) is softfreeze, so I'm going to send a pull request > for this series tomorrow - let me know by then if you want me to fix up the > year, or if you rather prefer to keep 2025. >
I actually wonder why we have the year at all (besides convention)... But I do not have a strong opinion about it and was checking about a re-spin exactly because of soft freeze. If you are OK with 2025 then that is also fine by me, leave it as-is. Thanks, Matt
