On Jun 9 17:32, 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 <[email protected]> > > >>>> > > >>>> 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. >
Sure, I can respin it. I would like to include this series as well though since I think it's a nice addition. I'll post a v7 that includes Philippes's return value verification patch as well as the patches in this series. We should only need a review or two on those patches then.
