On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:04:57AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 09:28, Jean-Philippe Brucker > <jean-phili...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 10:19:47AM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 10:35 PM Jean-Philippe Brucker > > > <jean-phili...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Add ACPI support for virtio-iommu on the virt machine, by instantiating > > > > a VIOT table. Also add the tests for the ACPI table. > > > > > > > > Since last posting [1], I rebased onto v6.2.0-rc4. Note that v6 of this > > > > series [2] only contained the table and x86 support, which have been > > > > merged. Everything has now been reviewed and should be good to go. > > > > > > > > * Patches 1-2 add the VIOT table for the virt machine > > > > * Patches 3-4 are minor fixes > > > > * Patches 5-8 add tests for the VIOT table. They contain the tests for > > > > q35 as well, which didn't make it last time because they depended on > > > > another fix that has now been merged. > > > > > > I believe the entire patchset has been reviewed and you are re-sending > > > it so that it gets pulled in after the release? > > > > Yes > > To be clear, do you mean: > (1) The patchset has been reviewed, and I plan to resend it (ie a v8) > to be pulled in after 6.2 releases > or > (2) The patchset has been reviewed already as v6, and this (v7) was just > a resend to be pulled in after 6.2 releases
I meant (2), v6 had already been reviewed and I'm resending v7 to be pulled after 6.2 releases, sorry about the confusion. Just for my understanding, should I have resent this after the 6.2 release, or is this OK and I should just state the intention for a patchset more clearly? Thanks, Jean
