On Mon, Dec 07 2015 at 8:21am -0500, Sami Tolvanen <samitolva...@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 04:09:35PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > I'd really appreciate it if you could do some regression testing, > > etc on your end to verify I didn't break anything while tweaking > > things. > > Sure. The changes look fine. I applied them to my tree and everything > still works as expected in my tests. Great. Moving forward it'd be awesome if you could work to get your verity FEC support regression tests into cryptsetup's tests. We need a way to verify future DM and/or other kernel changes don't somehow cause this FEC support to regress. Also, I know you said you'd be getting Milan a veritysetup patch soon. How are things going on that? Ideally that'll land in conjunction with the kernel's dm-verity FEC support. > Thanks for taking the time to review the patches! No problem, like I said I'll be reviewing the code further but at this point your changes seem to be on-track for upstream Linux 4.5 inclusion. Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
