A recent patch modifying the core paravirt-ops functionality is highlighting some missing MAINTAINERS information for PARAVIRT_OPS: there is no information which tree is to be used for taking those patches per default. In the past this was mostly handled by the tip tree, and I think this is fine. X86 maintainers, are you fine with me modifying the PARAVIRT_OPS entry to add the x86 ML and the tip tree? This way such patches will be noticed by you and can be handled accordingly. An alternative would be to let me carry those patches through the Xen tree, but in lots of those patches some core x86 files are being touched and I think the tip tree is better suited for paravirt handling. And please, could you take a look at: https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/b8192e8a-13ef-6ac6-6364-8ba58992cd1d@xxxxxxxx/ This patch was the one making me notice the problem. Juergen
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
