Re: [PATCH modules-next v10 00/13] kallsyms: reliable symbol->address lookup with /proc/kallmodsyms

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:08:12PM +0000, Nick Alcock wrote:

On 21 Feb 2023, Luis Chamberlain stated:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 11:53:29PM +0000, Nick Alcock wrote:

quoted

[most people trimmed from the Cc: list for this procedural question]

On 9 Feb 2023, Nick Alcock outgrape:

quoted

I am going to split this whole series into:

1. A series of patches (123 of them at present) Cc:ed to subsystem
maintainers as well as you, to comment out the MODULE_LICENSE usage.
These patches will have Suggested-by you. This series is rebased against
the latest modules-next and revalidated, and is ready to be mailed out;
will do so shortly.

One quick question: if/when you're happy with this series, are you
planning to take it yourself via modules-next?

It seems some maintainers are already taking patches in, so let's see
what folks take in, then if there are not takers I can just take what is
not merged on linux-next through modules-next.

So try to get them into each subsystem tree, and around rc3 send the
ones that are not merged and I'll just take them into modules-next.

Sounds good! I can trivially regenerate a new patch series containing
only the still-missing bits without needing to do anything like track
who took things, because nearly all of this is automated anyway.

Fantastic.

... at least I can if I can figure out where all the subsystem trees
that people took them into are (not everyone might mention when they
take one).

This is why I use linux-next. It represents all the latest trees merged.

I might miss a few, but I suspect that's not a problem:
taking the same commit by two different routes does not constitute a
conflict, at least on its own.

Right.

  Luis