On 18.08.21 18:39, Alex Williamson wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:59:51 +0200
Christian Borntraeger [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 02.08.21 18:32, Tony Krowiak wrote:

quoted

On 8/2/21 9:53 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 09:10:26 -0400
Tony Krowiak [off-list ref] wrote:
  

quoted

PING!

This patch will pre-req version 17 of a patch series I have waiting in
the wings,
so I'd like to get this one merged ASAP. In particular, if a KVM
maintainer can
take a look at the comments concerning the taking of the kvm->lock
before the
matrix_mdev->lock it would be greatly appreciated. Those comments begin with
Message ID [ref] from Halil Pasic.

As far as I'm concerned, we can move forward with this. Was this
supposed to go in via Alex's tree?

I am not certain, Christian queued the previous patches related to
this on:


https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git/log/?h=fixes

Jason G., since this will need to be integrated with your other patches,
where should this be queued?

This previous patch (s390/vfio-ap: clean up mdev resources when remove callback invoked) is
already in master.
Can you respin the series with all Acks and RBs?

Alex, can you then take these 2 patches via your tree? Thanks

Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <redacted>
for this series.

I see some review feedback that seems to suggest a new version would be
posted:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-s390/0f03ab0b-2dfd-e1c1-fe43-be2a59030a71@linux.ibm.com/ (local)

I also see in this thread:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-s390/20210721164550.5402fe1c.pasic@linux.ibm.com/ (local)

that Halil's concern's around open/close races are addressed by Jason's
device_open/close series that's already in my next branch and he
provided an Ack, but there's still the above question regarding the
kvm->lock that was looking for a review from... I'm not sure, maybe
Connie or Paolo.  Christian, is this specifically what you're ack'ing?

My understanding was that Halil was ok in the end?
I will do a review myself then if that helps.

It can ultimately go in through my tree, but not being familiar with
this code I'd hope for more closure.  Thanks,

Alex