Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 17 Sep 2019 16:12:36 +0200 (CEST)
From:   John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
cc:     Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
        sebastian@breakpoint.cc, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rt-tests: backfire: Don't include asm/uaccess.h
 directly
In-Reply-To: <20190917102436.tn2faq3hcdadybgw@linutronix.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.21.1909171611190.3853@planxty>
References: <20190903191321.6762-1-sultan@kerneltoast.com> <alpine.LFD.2.21.1909162356500.10273@planxty> <20190917102436.tn2faq3hcdadybgw@linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LFD 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 17 Sep 2019, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

> On 2019-09-16 23:57:32 [+0200], John Kacur wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
> 
> Hmmm. I remember this thing came up years ago in the Debian BTS and then
> that backfire module got removed from the Debian package because there
> was no need for it.
> Just to clarify: is there any need to keep this module or do I mix up
> things?
> 
> Sebastian
> 

The cost of carrying the code should anyone wish to revive this is very 
small, and it wouldn't take much effort to get it going again.

It could go either way, I'm fine with carrying it for now.

John