Re: Which tree for paravirt related patches?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Juergen,

On Thu, Nov 04 2021 at 06:53, Juergen Gross wrote:

> 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.

Sure.

> 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.

Fair enough.

> 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.

Will do.

Thanks,

        Thomas
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization



[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux