| Message ID | 20201008131336.61100-1-sth@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | DASD FC endpoint security | expand |
Hi Jens, quick ping. Are you going to apply this for 5.10? Best regards, Stefan Stefan Haberland <sth@linux.ibm.com> schrieb am Thu, 08. Oct 15:13: > Hi Jens, > > please apply the following patches that add a new DASD feature to show > fibre channel endpoint security. > > The patches apply on you for-next branch and are intended for 5.10. > > The s390/cio patches should also go upstream through your tree this time > since they are required for the DASD patches to build. > > Best regards, > Stefan > > v1->v2: > - fix memleak in "s390/dasd: Fix operational path inconsistency" > - add comment suggested by Cornelia Huck > > Jan Höppner (7): > s390/dasd: Remove unused parameter from dasd_generic_probe() > s390/dasd: Move duplicate code to separate function > s390/dasd: Store path configuration data during path handling > s390/dasd: Fix operational path inconsistency > s390/dasd: Display FC Endpoint Security information via sysfs > s390/dasd: Prepare for additional path event handling > s390/dasd: Process FCES path event notification > > Sebastian Ott (1): > s390/cio: Export information about Endpoint-Security Capability > > Vineeth Vijayan (2): > s390/cio: Provide Endpoint-Security Mode per CU > s390/cio: Add support for FCES status notification > > arch/s390/include/asm/ccwdev.h | 2 + > arch/s390/include/asm/cio.h | 1 + > drivers/s390/block/dasd.c | 22 ++-- > drivers/s390/block/dasd_devmap.c | 109 +++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/s390/block/dasd_eckd.c | 175 +++++++++++++++++++++---------- > drivers/s390/block/dasd_fba.c | 2 +- > drivers/s390/block/dasd_int.h | 111 +++++++++++++++++++- > drivers/s390/cio/chp.c | 15 +++ > drivers/s390/cio/chp.h | 1 + > drivers/s390/cio/chsc.c | 145 +++++++++++++++++++++++-- > drivers/s390/cio/chsc.h | 3 +- > drivers/s390/cio/device.c | 15 ++- > 12 files changed, 523 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.17.1 >
On 10/12/20 1:06 PM, Stefan Haberland wrote: > Hi Jens, > > quick ping. Are you going to apply this for 5.10? I actually wasn't planning on it - it arrived a bit late, and it seemed like one of those things that needed a bit more review talk before being able to be applied.
Am 12.10.20 um 21:33 schrieb Jens Axboe: > On 10/12/20 1:06 PM, Stefan Haberland wrote: >> Hi Jens, >> >> quick ping. Are you going to apply this for 5.10? > I actually wasn't planning on it - it arrived a bit late, and > it seemed like one of those things that needed a bit more review > talk before being able to be applied. > OK, too bad. I had hoped that this was still OK. The patches have been tested and reviewed internally for quite a while. Which actually was the reason for the late submission. Cornelia also gave her RB last week. But OK, if you think this needs some more review we will have to wait for 5.11.
On 10/12/20 1:50 PM, Stefan Haberland wrote: > Am 12.10.20 um 21:33 schrieb Jens Axboe: >> On 10/12/20 1:06 PM, Stefan Haberland wrote: >>> Hi Jens, >>> >>> quick ping. Are you going to apply this for 5.10? >> I actually wasn't planning on it - it arrived a bit late, and >> it seemed like one of those things that needed a bit more review >> talk before being able to be applied. >> > > OK, too bad. I had hoped that this was still OK. > The patches have been tested and reviewed internally for quite a while. > Which actually was the reason for the late submission. Cornelia also > gave her RB last week. I'm not worried about the stability of it as much as whether the special feature is warranted. From the former point of view, it's probably fine to go in now. > But OK, if you think this needs some more review we will have to wait > for 5.11. I'd definitely feel more comfortable with that.
Am 13.10.20 um 21:40 schrieb Jens Axboe: > On 10/12/20 1:50 PM, Stefan Haberland wrote: >> Am 12.10.20 um 21:33 schrieb Jens Axboe: >>> On 10/12/20 1:06 PM, Stefan Haberland wrote: >>>> Hi Jens, >>>> >>>> quick ping. Are you going to apply this for 5.10? >>> I actually wasn't planning on it - it arrived a bit late, and >>> it seemed like one of those things that needed a bit more review >>> talk before being able to be applied. >>> >> OK, too bad. I had hoped that this was still OK. >> The patches have been tested and reviewed internally for quite a while. >> Which actually was the reason for the late submission. Cornelia also >> gave her RB last week. > I'm not worried about the stability of it as much as whether the special > feature is warranted. From the former point of view, it's probably fine > to go in now. >> But OK, if you think this needs some more review we will have to wait >> for 5.11. > I'd definitely feel more comfortable with that. > OK, I will take care that features will be sent earlier next time. So, instead could you please apply the patches for 5.11 as soon as it is suitable?
On 10/13/20 2:15 PM, Stefan Haberland wrote: > Am 13.10.20 um 21:40 schrieb Jens Axboe: >> On 10/12/20 1:50 PM, Stefan Haberland wrote: >>> Am 12.10.20 um 21:33 schrieb Jens Axboe: >>>> On 10/12/20 1:06 PM, Stefan Haberland wrote: >>>>> Hi Jens, >>>>> >>>>> quick ping. Are you going to apply this for 5.10? >>>> I actually wasn't planning on it - it arrived a bit late, and >>>> it seemed like one of those things that needed a bit more review >>>> talk before being able to be applied. >>>> >>> OK, too bad. I had hoped that this was still OK. >>> The patches have been tested and reviewed internally for quite a while. >>> Which actually was the reason for the late submission. Cornelia also >>> gave her RB last week. >> I'm not worried about the stability of it as much as whether the special >> feature is warranted. From the former point of view, it's probably fine >> to go in now. >>> But OK, if you think this needs some more review we will have to wait >>> for 5.11. >> I'd definitely feel more comfortable with that. >> > > OK, I will take care that features will be sent earlier next time. Thanks, ideally I like to have new stuff like that in my tree (and for-next) for at least a week prior to the merge window opening. > So, instead could you please apply the patches for 5.11 as soon as it is > suitable? I will - I have it queued up, won't create anything public until we get past the merge window.
Am 14.10.20 um 03:19 schrieb Jens Axboe: > >> So, instead could you please apply the patches for 5.11 as soon as it is >> suitable? > I will - I have it queued up, won't create anything public until we > get past the merge window. > Sorry to bother you again with this. Is there any outlook when you are going to push the patches to your for-next branch? Or shall I resend the patches?
On 11/10/20 8:50 AM, Stefan Haberland wrote: > Am 14.10.20 um 03:19 schrieb Jens Axboe: >> >>> So, instead could you please apply the patches for 5.11 as soon as it is >>> suitable? >> I will - I have it queued up, won't create anything public until we >> get past the merge window. >> > > Sorry to bother you again with this. > Is there any outlook when you are going to push the patches to your > for-next branch? > > Or shall I resend the patches? I already did apply it, just don't push out next release branches that early. Pushed out now, so it is in.
Am 11.11.20 um 17:20 schrieb Jens Axboe: > On 11/10/20 8:50 AM, Stefan Haberland wrote: >> Am 14.10.20 um 03:19 schrieb Jens Axboe: >>>> So, instead could you please apply the patches for 5.11 as soon as it is >>>> suitable? >>> I will - I have it queued up, won't create anything public until we >>> get past the merge window. >>> >> Sorry to bother you again with this. >> Is there any outlook when you are going to push the patches to your >> for-next branch? >> >> Or shall I resend the patches? > I already did apply it, just don't push out next release branches > that early. Pushed out now, so it is in. > Thanks a lot.