On 12/1/20 10:07 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > Hi! > > I'm sorry, I should have pinged it, or resend, or suggest to pull at > least a half long ago :( > > I've rebased it on master and make some fixes. > > What to do next? I can just resend. But I'm afraid that Eric's careful > audits may be out of date: time passed, there is no guarantee that > callers are not changed. Really sorry :( > So r-b marks are not applicable as well, yes?
If you think the rebase has fundamentally changed things, then dropping the r-b is safest. I will probably spend a good time on the audit again, but this time, I want to see the project through to completion, and am willing to take patches through my NBD tree if Kevin or other block maintainers do not have enough time to take it through a broader block tree. I can justify it because I have a specific patch in NBD that will benefit from this audit - I want to rever 890cbccb08 in favor of using saner 64-bit APIs throughout the block layer. But I am also aware that your patches touch more than NBD, so even if Kevin can't commit to a full review, I will at least try to get his Acked-by. > > But if I just resend it with no r-bs, is it feasible to review/merge it > in a finite time? So that audits of patches will not become outdated? Yes, let's agree to put a lot more effort into getting this series in for 6.0. -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org