On 7/18/25 4:04 AM, Jason Wang wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 9:52 PM Paolo Abeni <pab...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 7/17/25 8:01 AM, Jason Wang wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 1:55 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 10:03:00AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 8:04 AM Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:47:52 +0800 Jason Wang wrote: >>>>>>> This series implements VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER support for vhost-net. This >>>>>>> feature is designed to improve the performance of the virtio ring by >>>>>>> optimizing descriptor processing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Benchmarks show a notable improvement. Please see patch 3 for details. >>>>>> >>>>>> You tagged these as net-next but just to be clear -- these don't apply >>>>>> for us in the current form. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Will rebase and send a new version. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Indeed these look as if they are for my tree (so I put them in >>>> linux-next, without noticing the tag). >>> >>> I think that's also fine. >>> >>> Do you prefer all vhost/vhost-net patches to go via your tree in the future? >>> >>> (Note that the reason for the conflict is because net-next gets UDP >>> GSO feature merged). >> >> FTR, I thought that such patches should have been pulled into the vhost >> tree, too. Did I miss something? > > See: https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg1108896.html
I'm sorry I likely was not clear in my previous message. My question is: any special reason to not pull the UDP tunnel GSO series into the vhost tree, too? Thanks, Paolo
