On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > Fair enough; I merged it because I was convinced that we have your Ack for > > the very same patch in our tree for kGraft, but now that I look again, we > > apparently don't. So sorry for that. What is your standpoint on this one > > then, please? > > I thought there was more available then the simple testcase within the kernel.
For kGraft we have, and I believe kPatch guys also have patches they are distributing for their own distro. So far we have the simplest testcases working with the in-kernel common infrastructure, and are working on adding more features (called "consistency models" in some discussions) that will allow for more complexity in the patches, so that we ultimately reach (or overcome) the level of complexity we are currently able to handle in kgraft/kpatch. > But since the testcase works: > > Acked-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com> Thanks a lot, Heiko. As I am generally never rebasing a published branches, I've split the 'for-4.1/core' to two branches and applied the patch ammended with your Ack to 'for-4.1/core-s390'. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- 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/
