Re: Which tree for paravirt related patches?
From: Srivatsa S. Bhat <hidden>
Date: 2021-11-04 20:17:32
Hi Thomas, On 11/4/21 1:11 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Srivatsa, On Thu, Nov 04 2021 at 12:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:quoted
On a related note, I'll be stepping in soon to assist (in place of Deep) as a co-maintainer of the PARAVIRT_OPS interface. I had the same query about which tree would be best for patches to the paravirt-ops code, so I'm glad to see that it got clarified on this thread.Welcome to the club.
Thank you! :-)
quoted
I'll also be taking over the maintainership of the VMware hypervisor interface. Looking at the git logs, I believe those patches have also been handled via the tip tree; so would it be okay to add the x86 ML and the tip tree to the VMware hypervisor interface entry too in the MAINTAINERS file?We've routed them through tip, yes. So yes, that's fine to have a separate entry in the maintainers file which has you and x86@kernel.org plus the tip tree mentioned.
Awesome, thanks a lot! Regards, Srivatsa _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization