Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 09:57:06 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
To: Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com>
cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: taint/module: Clean up global and module taint flags handling
In-Reply-To: <20160923044840.GB30848@packer-debian-8-amd64.digitalocean.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1610070954380.31629@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
References: <1474458442-21581-1-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> <20160923044840.GB30848@packer-debian-8-amd64.digitalocean.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 842
Lines: 23

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