On Thu, Nov 04 2021 at 10:17, Thomas Gleixner wrote: CC+ x86, peterz > 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
