On 2022-05-16 6:09 p.m., Sam James wrote:
FWIW, I've done some cleanups to this patch and committed it to my for-next tree. In case it's split up, please use the revised version.Should I be testing with for-next (which contains this patch) or for-next-next (which has some smaller bits)?
The change in for-next-next shouldn't affect functionality. The patch for-next is the one to test. Dave -- John David Anglin dave.anglin@xxxxxxxx
