On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:19:26AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:

On 7/18/25 4:04 AM, Jason Wang wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 9:52 PM Paolo Abeni [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 7/17/25 8:01 AM, Jason Wang wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 1:55 PM Michael S. Tsirkin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 10:03:00AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 8:04 AM Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:47:52 +0800 Jason Wang wrote:

quoted

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