On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 13:55 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Mon, 2023-08-07 at 15:39 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote: > > 0003 is looking pretty good, too, but I think we > > should get some more eyes on it, given the complexity. > > Attached rebased version of 0003.
Is someone else planning to look at 0003, or should I just proceed? It
seems to be clearly wanted, and I think it's better to get it in this
'fest than to wait.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
