On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 08:43:17PM +0100, Michal Suchánek wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 04:20:41PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 09:32:01PM +0000, Aaron Tomlin wrote: > > > Hi Luis, > > > > > > As per your suggestion [1], this is an attempt to refactor and split > > > optional code out of core module support code into separate components. > > > This version is based on branch mcgrof/modules-next since a97ac8cb24a3/or > > > modules-5.17-rc1. Please let me know your thoughts. > > > > > > Changes since v1 [2]: > > > > Thanks for all this work Aaron! Can you drop the RFC prefix, > > rebase onto linus' latest tree (as he already merged my > > modules-next, so his tree is more up to date), and submit again? > > > > I'll then apply this to my modules-next, and then ask Christophe to > > rebase on top of that. > > > > Michal, you'd be up next if you want to go through modules-next. > > Sounds like a good idea. When rebasing on top of 5.17-rc1 the only > conflict was on the module code. I'll let you know once modules-next is ready for your code. But before that, does anyone have any objections with this code going through modules-next? Although its kexec related it touches on a lot of kernel/module.c and if we don't take it on modules-next I'm afraid there will be quite a bit of conflicts there later. Luis
