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
