Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: fix SBDF calculation for vPCI MMIO handlers [and 2 more messages]

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Oleksandr,

On 02/11/2021 07:16, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 01.11.21 23:06, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Nov 2021, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Julien Grall writes ("Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: fix SBDF calculation for vPCI MMIO 
> > > handlers"):
> > > > On 28/10/2021 16:54, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > > There are a number of patches that I'm getting CC'd on related to ARM
> > > > > and vpci (according to the Subject).  Are these targeted for 4.16 ?
> > > > > Most of them don't have 4.16 Subject tags.
> > > > Oleksandr wants this patch to be included for 4.16 but forgot to tag it
> > > > properly.
> > > Oh yes.  However,
> > >
> > > 1. I also wrote this:
> > >
> > > > > I am finding it difficult to see the wood for the trees.
> > > > > It would be really helpful if these vpci fixes were collected
> > > > > together into a series.
> > > Can someone please confirm whether this is the only vpci-related patch
> > > that ought to be on my radar for 4.16 ?
> > >
> > > 2. I have not had a reply to my question on Wednesday in
> > > <24953.34635.645112.279110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > >
> > >     Um, can you explain what the practical impact is of not taking this
> > >     patch for 4.16 ?  As I understand it vpci for ARM is non-functional in
> > >     4.16 and this is not expected to change ?  So there would be no
> > >     benefit to users, and taking the patch would add small but nonzero
> > >     risk ?
> > >
> > > I need this information to decide whether a release-ack is
> > > appropriate.
> > >
> > > Note that we are in code freeze so all patches, including bugfixes,
> > > need my ack.
> > Hi Ian,
> >
> > This patch [1] is a straightforward 2 lines fix for vpci on ARM.  There
> > is no risk for the release as the source file affected only builds when
> > CONFIG_HAS_VPCI is enabled, and it is currently disabled on ARM.
> >
> > At the same time, as we know vpci is not complete in 4.16 anyway, so the
> > counter argument is that we don't need to fix it.
> >
> > Given how trivial the fix is, and that it cannot break the build or
> > runtime, I would take it.
> Thank you,
> I can re-send the patch with the updated commit message (Julien),
> but I still have no R-b's for the patch, so not sure if it is worth it
I can't speak for the others. In my case, I didn't give my reviewed-by 
because the commit message needs to be updated. If you resend, I will 
have another look.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall