On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:19:26AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > 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
Paolo I'm likely confused. That series is in net-next, right? So now it would be work to drop it from there, and invalidate all the testing it got there, for little benefit - the merge conflict is easy to resolve. -- MST
