[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 00/17] Netchannel2 for a modern git kernel

[Steven Smith <steven.smith@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> >>> This is a forward port of the NC2 patches I posted against so that
> >>> they apply to Jeremy's git tree, rather than the XCI patchqueue.  It's
> >>> identical in most important respects, except that I've not included
> >>> any of the VMQ patches.
> >>>       
> >> Do you have a git tree I can pull these from?  I have
> >> git://xenbits.xensource.com/people/ssmith/netchannel2-pvops.git in my
> >> list of repos, but you don't seem to have updated it.
> >>     
> > Oops, sorry about that.  It should all be in now, in the nc2/master
> > branch.
> >
> > (Although you may want to wait until the discussion about the new
> > grant table interface is sorted out before pulling.)
> Thanks.  I've pulled it anyway, but not yet merged it into anything yet.
Okay.  I'm going to change the interface a bit following the review
comments; would you prefer I shove a fixup patch on the end or edit
history and keep the patches sensibly self-contained?

> What dependencies does it have on the rest of the xen changes?  In
> general I like to avoid basing branches on xen/master, because it makes
> them fairly brittle to rebase or otherwise rearrange.  Ideally I like to
> base each topic branch on a mainline kernel version (like v2.6.31), or
> if there are too many dependencies on other Xen topic branches, the most
> specific one that covers the dependencies (xen/core, xen/dom0/core, for
> example).
I needed to make some changes to netback to make forwarding packets
between NC1 and NC2 interfaces work, but apart from that it's fairly
self-contained.  Would you like me to rebase to
xen/dom0/backend/netback?

> Also, does this include both front and backend parts together?  I think
> it would be easier to deal with if you could split it into separate
> common, frontend and backend branches.  Or maybe that would be too fiddly...
It includes both.  I'm not sure it would be terribly helpful to split
them out: the distinction between frontend and backend is pretty
arbitrary for network devices anyway, and bypass support blurs the
line even further.

It'd certainly be possible to create the three branches you suggest,
but I'd guess you'd end up with almost everything going into the
common branch with the frontend and backend branches containing a
single patch each to add netfront2.c and netback2.c respectively.  I'm
not sure how useful that would be.

Steven.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel