Re: [PATCH net-next v9 0/4] vsock/virtio/vhost: MSG_ZEROCOPY preparations

[Arseniy Krasnov]

On 19.09.2023 19:48, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
> 
> 
> On 19.09.2023 16:35, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:19:54PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 09:54 +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 07:56:00PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>>>> Hi Stefano,
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for review! So when this patchset will be merged to net-next,
>>>>> I'll start sending next part of MSG_ZEROCOPY patchset, e.g. AF_VSOCK +
>>>>> Documentation/ patches.
>>>>
>>>> Ack, if it is not a very big series, maybe better to include also the
>>>> tests so we can run them before merge the feature.
>>>
>>> I understand that at least 2 follow-up series are waiting for this, one
>>> of them targeting net-next and the bigger one targeting the virtio
>>> tree. Am I correct?
>>
>> IIUC the next series will touch only the vsock core
>> (net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c), tests, and documentation.
>>
>> The virtio part should be fully covered by this series.
>>
>> @Arseniy feel free to correct me!
> 
> Yes, only this patchset touches virtio code. Next patchset will be AF_VSOCK,
> Documentation/ and tests. I think there is no need to merge it to the virtio
> tree - we can continue in the same way as before during AF_VSOCK development,
> e.g. merging it to net-next only.

^^^
I mean of course if there is need to merge to virtio tree also - no problem,
just informing that the next set of patches doesn't touch virtio code.
(except two several lines patches for drivers/vhost/vsock.c and net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c)

> 
> Thanks, Arseniy
> 
>>
>>>
>>> DaveM suggests this should go via the virtio tree, too. Any different
>>> opinion?
>>
>> For this series should be fine, I'm not sure about the next series.
>> Merging this with the virtio tree, then it forces us to do it for
>> followup as well right?
>>
>> In theory followup is more on the core, so better with net-next, but
>> it's also true that for now only virtio transports support it, so it
>> might be okay to continue with virtio.
>>
>> @Michael WDYT?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Stefano
>>