Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2023 10:01:11 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@sberdevices.ru>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@bytedance.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel@sberdevices.ru, oxffffaa@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/17] vsock: MSG_ZEROCOPY flag support
Message-ID: <vqh472etosyyht53hd3bafvtuaedwhqsuqwdbmfkd6lyvxkkgq@mnp42ujut5ox>
References: <20230603204939.1598818-1-AVKrasnov@sberdevices.ru>
 <kilgxopbdguge4bd6pfdjb3oqzemttwzf4na54xurwl62hi7uc@2njjwuhox3al>
 <352508dd-1ea2-5d2d-9ccf-dfcfbd2bb911@sberdevices.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <352508dd-1ea2-5d2d-9ccf-dfcfbd2bb911@sberdevices.ru>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 07:55:58AM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>
>
>On 26.06.2023 19:15, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 11:49:22PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:

[...]

>>>
>>> ????????? LET'S SPLIT PATCHSET TO MAKE REVIEW EASIER
>>>
>>> In v3 Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com> asked to split this patchset
>>> for several parts, because it looks too big for review. I think in this
>>> version (v4) we can do it in the following way:
>>>
>>> [0001 - 0005] - this is preparation for virtio/vhost part.
>>> [0006 - 0009] - this is preparation for AF_VSOCK part.
>>> [0010 - 0013] - these patches allows to trigger logic from the previous
>>> ?????????????? two parts.
>>> [0014 - rest] - updates for doc, tests, utils. This part doesn't touch
>>> ?????????????? kernel code and looks not critical.
>>
>> Yeah, I like this split, but I'd include 14 in the (10, 13) group.
>>
>> I have reviewed most of them and I think we are well on our way :-)
>> I've already seen that Bobby suggested changes for v5, so I'll review
>> that version better.
>>
>> Great work so far!
>
>Hello Stefano!

Hi Arseniy :-)

>
>Thanks for review! I left some questions, but most of comments are clear
>for me. So I guess that idea of split is that I still keep all patches in
>a big single patchset, but preserve structure described above and we will
>do review process step by step according split?
>
>Or I should split this patchset for 3 separated sets? I guess this will be
>more complex to review...

If the next is still RFC, a single series is fine.

Thanks,
Stefano