Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull IOMMUFD subsystem changes

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: iommu@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull IOMMUFD subsystem changes
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 20:02:43 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y/lQIwcha1DFq2om@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiy2XRdvxchyuVYJJ618sAcGiPPam14z8yAW+kyCzgPmA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 02:50:45PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 7:39 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >
> > iommufd for 6.3
> >
> > Some polishing and small fixes for iommufd:
> 
> Hmm. About half the patches seem to not be about iommufd, but about
> 'isolated_msi', which isn't even mentioned in the pull request at all
> (well, it's there in the shortlog, but not in the actual "this is what
> happened")

Ah, it is perhaps somewhat cryptically mentioned in the tag:

"Remove IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP, instead rely on the interrupt subsystem"

In retrospect I can see that is pretty obtuse, but from my POV that
was the goal of that series :)

> I already merged it, and am not sure what I would add to the commit
> message, but I really would have liked to see that mentioned,
> considering that it wasn't some small part of it all.

I think the missing paragraph is something like:

 This PR includes some rework of MSI isolation/security capability
 detection that touches irq, iommu, vfio and iommufd. It consolidates
 two partially overlapping approaches into a single one.

Do you like this sort of explanation in the email or the tag?

Honestly, after 5 years (wow time flies) of sending PRs for rdma I'm
still a bit unclear on the best way to write the tag message.

I suppose you noticed, but I've followed John Corbet's suggestion to
capture the cover letters in internal merge commits. Eg isolated-msi
has a lot of words in commit fc3873095a

Thanks,
Jason