On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Jessica Yu wrote:
> Hm, quick question, which tree would this patch go to? Though the
> cleanup is for modules, there is an indirect cross-tree dependency
> (taint_flag.module needs to be true for TAINT_LIVEPATCH for Josh's
> patch to still work as intended). The least complicated thing to do
> would be to just take this through the livepatch tree (with Rusty's
> approval :-)), no?
I don't want to be sneaking this behind Rusty's back, but he hasn't
reposnded so far.
It's not vitally super-crucial to have this present in this very pull
request, so I am currently putting this on hold wrt. the upcoming merge
window pull request, and we'll then proceeed afterwards once Rusty
expressess his (n)ack. If this doesn't happen during the coming weeks,
I'll pick this up myself.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Jiri Kosina <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Jessica Yu wrote:
>
>> Hm, quick question, which tree would this patch go to? Though the
>> cleanup is for modules, there is an indirect cross-tree dependency
>> (taint_flag.module needs to be true for TAINT_LIVEPATCH for Josh's
>> patch to still work as intended). The least complicated thing to do
>> would be to just take this through the livepatch tree (with Rusty's
>> approval :-)), no?
>
> I don't want to be sneaking this behind Rusty's back, but he hasn't
> reposnded so far.
I finally side-stepped this by appointing Jessica maintainer, thus her
Reviewed-by is sufficient for the module tree.
Lazy, huh?
Sorry for the delay,
Rusty.
> It's not vitally super-crucial to have this present in this very pull
> request, so I am currently putting this on hold wrt. the upcoming merge
> window pull request, and we'll then proceeed afterwards once Rusty
> expressess his (n)ack. If this doesn't happen during the coming weeks,
> I'll pick this up myself.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Jiri Kosina
> SUSE Labs
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> Hm, quick question, which tree would this patch go to? Though the
> >> cleanup is for modules, there is an indirect cross-tree dependency
> >> (taint_flag.module needs to be true for TAINT_LIVEPATCH for Josh's
> >> patch to still work as intended). The least complicated thing to do
> >> would be to just take this through the livepatch tree (with Rusty's
> >> approval :-)), no?
> >
> > I don't want to be sneaking this behind Rusty's back, but he hasn't
> > reposnded so far.
>
> I finally side-stepped this by appointing Jessica maintainer, thus her
> Reviewed-by is sufficient for the module tree.
Awesome! :)
> Lazy, huh?
Laziness has always been the main power behind all the progress of the
mankind :P
Jessica, do you want me to take the patch through livepatching tree still,
or would you route it yourself now?
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
+++ Jiri Kosina [26/10/16 10:17 +0200]:
>On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
>> >> Hm, quick question, which tree would this patch go to? Though the
>> >> cleanup is for modules, there is an indirect cross-tree dependency
>> >> (taint_flag.module needs to be true for TAINT_LIVEPATCH for Josh's
>> >> patch to still work as intended). The least complicated thing to do
>> >> would be to just take this through the livepatch tree (with Rusty's
>> >> approval :-)), no?
>> >
>> > I don't want to be sneaking this behind Rusty's back, but he hasn't
>> > reposnded so far.
>>
>> I finally side-stepped this by appointing Jessica maintainer, thus her
>> Reviewed-by is sufficient for the module tree.
>
>Awesome! :)
>
>> Lazy, huh?
>
>Laziness has always been the main power behind all the progress of the
>mankind :P
>
>Jessica, do you want me to take the patch through livepatching tree still,
>or would you route it yourself now?
Hi Jiri,
Once I'm done fumbling with maintainership logistics, I will take this
patch through my tree. :-)
Thanks,
Jessica