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.
Best regards, Maxim Levitsky