On 08/12/2014 12:22 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:11:29PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> >>> What's the status of this series? I assume that it's too late for at >>> least patches 2-5 to make it into 3.17. >> >> Which tree were you hoping this patch series to go through? I was >> assuming it would go through the x86 tree since the bulk of the >> changes in the x86 subsystem (hence my Acked-by). > > There's some argument that patch 1 should go through the kvm tree. > There's no real need for patch 1 and 2-5 to end up in the same kernel > release, either. > >> >> IIRC, Peter had some concerns, and I don't remember if they were all >> addressed. Peter? >> > > I don't know. I rewrite one thing he didn't like and undid the other, > but there's plenty of opportunity for this version to be problematic, too. > Sorry, I have been heads down on the current merge window. I will look at this for 3.18, presumably after Kernel Summit. The proposed arch_get_rng_seed() is not really what it claims to be; it most definitely does not produce seed-grade randomness, instead it seems to be an arch function for best-effort initialization of the entropy pools -- which is fine, it is just something quite different. I want to look over it more carefully before acking it, though. Andy, are you going to be in Chicago? -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
