Re: Which tree for paravirt related patches?
From: Thomas Gleixner <hidden>
Date: 2021-11-04 09:18:33
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:quoted
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.quoted
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.quoted
And please, could you take a look at: https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/b8192e8a-13ef-6ac6-6364-8ba58992cd1d@suse.com/ (local) This patch was the one making me notice the problem.Will do. Thanks, Thomas
_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization