Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming
On Monday, November 26, 2012 02:37:54 PM Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:31:04PM -0800, George Zhang wrote: * * * This series of VMCI linux upstreaming patches include latest udpate from VMware. Summary of changes: - Sparse clean. - Checkpatch clean with one exception, a complex macro in which we can't add parentheses. - Remove all runtime assertions. - Fix device name, so that existing user clients work. - Fix VMCI handle lookup. Given that you failed to answer the questions I asked the last time you posted this series, and you did not make any of the changes I asked for, I can't accept this (nor should you expect me to.) And people wonder why reviewers get so grumpy... My trees are now closed for the 3.8 merge window, so feel free to try again after 3.8-rc1 is out, and you have answered, and addressed, the questions and comments I made. Greg, there were 3 specific complaints from you: 1. Given that this is a static function, there's no need for these asserts, right? Please send a follow-on patch removing all BUG_ON() calls from these files, it's not acceptable to crash a user's box from a driver that is handling parameters you are feeding it. 2. You obviously didn't run checkpatch on this file 3. This line causes sparse to complain. The odds that userspace knows what gcc is using for bool is pretty low. Given the fact that the series addresses all 3 I fail to understand why you would be grumpy. Anyway, since there vsock has not been reviewed yet we are OK with postponing this patch series till 3.9. Thanks, Dmitry ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:01:04PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday, November 26, 2012 02:37:54 PM Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:31:04PM -0800, George Zhang wrote: * * * This series of VMCI linux upstreaming patches include latest udpate from VMware. Summary of changes: - Sparse clean. - Checkpatch clean with one exception, a complex macro in which we can't add parentheses. - Remove all runtime assertions. - Fix device name, so that existing user clients work. - Fix VMCI handle lookup. Given that you failed to answer the questions I asked the last time you posted this series, and you did not make any of the changes I asked for, I can't accept this (nor should you expect me to.) And people wonder why reviewers get so grumpy... My trees are now closed for the 3.8 merge window, so feel free to try again after 3.8-rc1 is out, and you have answered, and addressed, the questions and comments I made. Greg, there were 3 specific complaints from you: 1. Given that this is a static function, there's no need for these asserts, right? Please send a follow-on patch removing all BUG_ON() calls from these files, it's not acceptable to crash a user's box from a driver that is handling parameters you are feeding it. 2. You obviously didn't run checkpatch on this file 3. This line causes sparse to complain. The odds that userspace knows what gcc is using for bool is pretty low. Given the fact that the series addresses all 3 I fail to understand why you would be grumpy. You are ignoring my response to patch 12/12 for some reason (which repeated a bunch of the questions I had with that patch the last time it was posted.) That is what I am referring to here. None of those questions were addressed. Also, how was I to know that those 3 comments above were addressed? When someone posts questions and comments, please respond to those comments. Don't just not respond at all and post the whole series 2 weeks later with things changed and a vague comment of summary of changes in the 00 message. Otherwise I will assume that you never even saw my post. In other words, if someone takes the time to review and post comments, the least you can do is acknowledge those comments, right? thanks, greg k-h ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming
On Monday, November 26, 2012 03:23:57 PM Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:01:04PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday, November 26, 2012 02:37:54 PM Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:31:04PM -0800, George Zhang wrote: * * * This series of VMCI linux upstreaming patches include latest udpate from VMware. Summary of changes: - Sparse clean. - Checkpatch clean with one exception, a complex macro in which we can't add parentheses. - Remove all runtime assertions. - Fix device name, so that existing user clients work. - Fix VMCI handle lookup. Given that you failed to answer the questions I asked the last time you posted this series, and you did not make any of the changes I asked for, I can't accept this (nor should you expect me to.) And people wonder why reviewers get so grumpy... My trees are now closed for the 3.8 merge window, so feel free to try again after 3.8-rc1 is out, and you have answered, and addressed, the questions and comments I made. Greg, there were 3 specific complaints from you: 1. Given that this is a static function, there's no need for these asserts, right? Please send a follow-on patch removing all BUG_ON() calls from these files, it's not acceptable to crash a user's box from a driver that is handling parameters you are feeding it. 2. You obviously didn't run checkpatch on this file 3. This line causes sparse to complain. The odds that userspace knows what gcc is using for bool is pretty low. Given the fact that the series addresses all 3 I fail to understand why you would be grumpy. You are ignoring my response to patch 12/12 for some reason (which repeated a bunch of the questions I had with that patch the last time it was posted.) That is what I am referring to here. None of those questions were addressed. That one was explicitly acknowledged in 20121030052234.gh32...@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com and fixed in series posted on 11/01. Since it was fixed in earlier posting we did not mention it again. Also, how was I to know that those 3 comments above were addressed? When someone posts questions and comments, please respond to those comments. Don't just not respond at all and post the whole series 2 weeks later with things changed and a vague comment of summary of changes in the 00 message. Otherwise I will assume that you never even saw my post. I thought Sparse clean and Checkpatch clean with one exception ... are concrete enough, but I am open to improving the messaging. What would you like us to say? In other words, if someone takes the time to review and post comments, the least you can do is acknowledge those comments, right? We did not want to litter mailing lists with OK responses, but will do in the future. Thanks, Dmitry ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:36:52PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday, November 26, 2012 03:23:57 PM Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:01:04PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday, November 26, 2012 02:37:54 PM Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:31:04PM -0800, George Zhang wrote: * * * This series of VMCI linux upstreaming patches include latest udpate from VMware. Summary of changes: - Sparse clean. - Checkpatch clean with one exception, a complex macro in which we can't add parentheses. - Remove all runtime assertions. - Fix device name, so that existing user clients work. - Fix VMCI handle lookup. Given that you failed to answer the questions I asked the last time you posted this series, and you did not make any of the changes I asked for, I can't accept this (nor should you expect me to.) And people wonder why reviewers get so grumpy... My trees are now closed for the 3.8 merge window, so feel free to try again after 3.8-rc1 is out, and you have answered, and addressed, the questions and comments I made. Greg, there were 3 specific complaints from you: 1. Given that this is a static function, there's no need for these asserts, right? Please send a follow-on patch removing all BUG_ON() calls from these files, it's not acceptable to crash a user's box from a driver that is handling parameters you are feeding it. 2. You obviously didn't run checkpatch on this file 3. This line causes sparse to complain. The odds that userspace knows what gcc is using for bool is pretty low. Given the fact that the series addresses all 3 I fail to understand why you would be grumpy. You are ignoring my response to patch 12/12 for some reason (which repeated a bunch of the questions I had with that patch the last time it was posted.) That is what I am referring to here. None of those questions were addressed. That one was explicitly acknowledged in 20121030052234.gh32...@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com and fixed in series posted on 11/01. Since it was fixed in earlier posting we did not mention it again. I questioned it on November 15, in: Message-ID: 20121116000118.ga8...@kroah.com Just ignoring that long response is acceptable? Really? I didn't ask enough questions in that review? I see obvious comments in there that were _not_ addressed in the November 21st posting of that patch (typedefs for u32? No c99 initializers?) And why isn't George responding to my comments when I ask questions? Also, please start numbering the submissions, this having to reference them by date is going to cause us all to get even more confused quicker. greg k-h ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming
On Monday, November 26, 2012 03:44:26 PM Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:36:52PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday, November 26, 2012 03:23:57 PM Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:01:04PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday, November 26, 2012 02:37:54 PM Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:31:04PM -0800, George Zhang wrote: * * * This series of VMCI linux upstreaming patches include latest udpate from VMware. Summary of changes: - Sparse clean. - Checkpatch clean with one exception, a complex macro in which we can't add parentheses. - Remove all runtime assertions. - Fix device name, so that existing user clients work. - Fix VMCI handle lookup. Given that you failed to answer the questions I asked the last time you posted this series, and you did not make any of the changes I asked for, I can't accept this (nor should you expect me to.) And people wonder why reviewers get so grumpy... My trees are now closed for the 3.8 merge window, so feel free to try again after 3.8-rc1 is out, and you have answered, and addressed, the questions and comments I made. Greg, there were 3 specific complaints from you: 1. Given that this is a static function, there's no need for these asserts, right? Please send a follow-on patch removing all BUG_ON() calls from these files, it's not acceptable to crash a user's box from a driver that is handling parameters you are feeding it. 2. You obviously didn't run checkpatch on this file 3. This line causes sparse to complain. The odds that userspace knows what gcc is using for bool is pretty low. Given the fact that the series addresses all 3 I fail to understand why you would be grumpy. You are ignoring my response to patch 12/12 for some reason (which repeated a bunch of the questions I had with that patch the last time it was posted.) That is what I am referring to here. None of those questions were addressed. That one was explicitly acknowledged in 20121030052234.gh32...@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com and fixed in series posted on 11/01. Since it was fixed in earlier posting we did not mention it again. I questioned it on November 15, in: Message-ID: 20121116000118.ga8...@kroah.com Just ignoring that long response is acceptable? Really? I didn't ask enough questions in that review? I see obvious comments in there that were _not_ addressed in the November 21st posting of that patch (typedefs for u32? No c99 initializers?) Hmm, neither I nor Google is aware of that msgid... So that would explain why we have not addressed the comments that were in it ;) Mind resending it, please? And why isn't George responding to my comments when I ask questions? Also, please start numbering the submissions, this having to reference them by date is going to cause us all to get even more confused quicker. OK, will do. Thanks, Dmitry ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming
Greg And why isn't George responding to my comments when I ask questions? I think Andy or Dmitry replied faster... We will improve our process from your comments, Thanks a lot, George ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:52:31PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday, November 26, 2012 03:44:26 PM Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:36:52PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday, November 26, 2012 03:23:57 PM Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:01:04PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday, November 26, 2012 02:37:54 PM Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:31:04PM -0800, George Zhang wrote: * * * This series of VMCI linux upstreaming patches include latest udpate from VMware. Summary of changes: - Sparse clean. - Checkpatch clean with one exception, a complex macro in which we can't add parentheses. - Remove all runtime assertions. - Fix device name, so that existing user clients work. - Fix VMCI handle lookup. Given that you failed to answer the questions I asked the last time you posted this series, and you did not make any of the changes I asked for, I can't accept this (nor should you expect me to.) And people wonder why reviewers get so grumpy... My trees are now closed for the 3.8 merge window, so feel free to try again after 3.8-rc1 is out, and you have answered, and addressed, the questions and comments I made. Greg, there were 3 specific complaints from you: 1. Given that this is a static function, there's no need for these asserts, right? Please send a follow-on patch removing all BUG_ON() calls from these files, it's not acceptable to crash a user's box from a driver that is handling parameters you are feeding it. 2. You obviously didn't run checkpatch on this file 3. This line causes sparse to complain. The odds that userspace knows what gcc is using for bool is pretty low. Given the fact that the series addresses all 3 I fail to understand why you would be grumpy. You are ignoring my response to patch 12/12 for some reason (which repeated a bunch of the questions I had with that patch the last time it was posted.) That is what I am referring to here. None of those questions were addressed. That one was explicitly acknowledged in 20121030052234.gh32...@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com and fixed in series posted on 11/01. Since it was fixed in earlier posting we did not mention it again. I questioned it on November 15, in: Message-ID: 20121116000118.ga8...@kroah.com Just ignoring that long response is acceptable? Really? I didn't ask enough questions in that review? I see obvious comments in there that were _not_ addressed in the November 21st posting of that patch (typedefs for u32? No c99 initializers?) Hmm, neither I nor Google is aware of that msgid... So that would explain why we have not addressed the comments that were in it ;) Mind resending it, please? Now resent. ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming
Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:52:31PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday, November 26, 2012 03:44:26 PM Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:36:52PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday, November 26, 2012 03:23:57 PM Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:01:04PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday, November 26, 2012 02:37:54 PM Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:31:04PM -0800, George Zhang wrote: * * * This series of VMCI linux upstreaming patches include latest udpate from VMware. Summary of changes: - Sparse clean. - Checkpatch clean with one exception, a complex macro in which we can't add parentheses. - Remove all runtime assertions. - Fix device name, so that existing user clients work. - Fix VMCI handle lookup. Given that you failed to answer the questions I asked the last time you posted this series, and you did not make any of the changes I asked for, I can't accept this (nor should you expect me to.) And people wonder why reviewers get so grumpy... My trees are now closed for the 3.8 merge window, so feel free to try again after 3.8-rc1 is out, and you have answered, and addressed, the questions and comments I made. Greg, there were 3 specific complaints from you: 1. Given that this is a static function, there's no need for these asserts, right? Please send a follow-on patch removing all BUG_ON() calls from these files, it's not acceptable to crash a user's box from a driver that is handling parameters you are feeding it. 2. You obviously didn't run checkpatch on this file 3. This line causes sparse to complain. The odds that userspace knows what gcc is using for bool is pretty low. Given the fact that the series addresses all 3 I fail to understand why you would be grumpy. You are ignoring my response to patch 12/12 for some reason (which repeated a bunch of the questions I had with that patch the last time it was posted.) That is what I am referring to here. None of those questions were addressed. That one was explicitly acknowledged in 20121030052234.gh32...@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com and fixed in series posted on 11/01. Since it was fixed in earlier posting we did not mention it again. I questioned it on November 15, in: Message-ID: 20121116000118.ga8...@kroah.com Just ignoring that long response is acceptable? Really? I didn't ask enough questions in that review? I see obvious comments in there that were _not_ addressed in the November 21st posting of that patch (typedefs for u32? No c99 initializers?) Hmm, neither I nor Google is aware of that msgid... So that would explain why we have not addressed the comments that were in it ;) Mind resending it, please? Now resent. I see both versions of Greg's message - one from 15 Nov, one today's. On my Gmail account... So Greg did post it... Cheers, Woody ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 07:27:07PM -0500, Woody Suwalski wrote: Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:52:31PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: Mind resending it, please? Now resent. I see both versions of Greg's message - one from 15 Nov, one today's. On my Gmail account... So Greg did post it... Right, I also see it now in my personal LKML archive but for some reason it didn't get delivered to my corporate mailbox. Weird. Thanks, Dmitry ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:07:44PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: Hi Greg, On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:19:38PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 06:03:28PM -0700, George Zhang wrote: drivers/misc/Kconfig |1 drivers/misc/Makefile |2 drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/Kconfig | 16 drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/Makefile| 43 Meta comment here, why drivers/misc/? The other hypervisor infrastructures all have their own directory under drivers/ Should we be moving everything to drivers/hyperv/ somehow? drivers/hyperv is not the best name for obvious reasons... Sorry, yes :) I think that even if we had a special directory for vmci having network drivers in Dave's realm and pvscsi in James's is best option, so the new directory would contain vmci and the balloon driver (vsock will go into net/). Given that balloon is already in drivers/misc it looked like obvious place for VMCI as well. I agree that the individual drivers should go in the subsystem area, it's this hypervisor bus core type code that I'm questioning. Right now every hypervisor is putting that logic in a different place in the kernel, having some consistency here would be nice. thanks, greg k-h ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 08:48:01AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:07:44PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: Hi Greg, On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:19:38PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 06:03:28PM -0700, George Zhang wrote: drivers/misc/Kconfig |1 drivers/misc/Makefile |2 drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/Kconfig | 16 drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/Makefile| 43 Meta comment here, why drivers/misc/? The other hypervisor infrastructures all have their own directory under drivers/ Should we be moving everything to drivers/hyperv/ somehow? drivers/hyperv is not the best name for obvious reasons... Sorry, yes :) :) I think that even if we had a special directory for vmci having network drivers in Dave's realm and pvscsi in James's is best option, so the new directory would contain vmci and the balloon driver (vsock will go into net/). Given that balloon is already in drivers/misc it looked like obvious place for VMCI as well. I agree that the individual drivers should go in the subsystem area, it's this hypervisor bus core type code that I'm questioning. Right now every hypervisor is putting that logic in a different place in the kernel, having some consistency here would be nice. Hmm, I wonder if miscellaneous and core hypervisor drivers should end up in drivers/platform: drivers/platform/hyperv drivers/platform/olpc drivers/platform/vmware drivers/platform/xen drivers/platform/x86 But really we'd like to get VMCI into mainline first and move to a new place later if such a better place is found. Thanks, Dmitry ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:18:07AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: I think that even if we had a special directory for vmci having network drivers in Dave's realm and pvscsi in James's is best option, so the new directory would contain vmci and the balloon driver (vsock will go into net/). Given that balloon is already in drivers/misc it looked like obvious place for VMCI as well. I agree that the individual drivers should go in the subsystem area, it's this hypervisor bus core type code that I'm questioning. Right now every hypervisor is putting that logic in a different place in the kernel, having some consistency here would be nice. Hmm, I wonder if miscellaneous and core hypervisor drivers should end up in drivers/platform: drivers/platform/hyperv drivers/platform/olpc drivers/platform/vmware drivers/platform/xen drivers/platform/x86 That makes sense to me, nice. But really we'd like to get VMCI into mainline first and move to a new place later if such a better place is found. Heh, no one wants to fight for something to help everyone out, they just want their own code accepted :) greg k-h ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:27:23AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:18:07AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: I think that even if we had a special directory for vmci having network drivers in Dave's realm and pvscsi in James's is best option, so the new directory would contain vmci and the balloon driver (vsock will go into net/). Given that balloon is already in drivers/misc it looked like obvious place for VMCI as well. I agree that the individual drivers should go in the subsystem area, it's this hypervisor bus core type code that I'm questioning. Right now every hypervisor is putting that logic in a different place in the kernel, having some consistency here would be nice. Hmm, I wonder if miscellaneous and core hypervisor drivers should end up in drivers/platform: drivers/platform/hyperv drivers/platform/olpc drivers/platform/vmware drivers/platform/xen drivers/platform/x86 That makes sense to me, nice. But really we'd like to get VMCI into mainline first and move to a new place later if such a better place is found. Heh, no one wants to fight for something to help everyone out, they just want their own code accepted :) No, this is more about finding a person who would be maintaining it and thus would review our code. For now we got you tagged and do not want to let go of you :P Or should we maintain our own stuff and have Linus pull it directly, like Xen guys appear to be doing? Really, moving it is not an issue for us. Thanks, Dmitry ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:43:54PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:27:23AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:18:07AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: I think that even if we had a special directory for vmci having network drivers in Dave's realm and pvscsi in James's is best option, so the new directory would contain vmci and the balloon driver (vsock will go into net/). Given that balloon is already in drivers/misc it looked like obvious place for VMCI as well. I agree that the individual drivers should go in the subsystem area, it's this hypervisor bus core type code that I'm questioning. Right now every hypervisor is putting that logic in a different place in the kernel, having some consistency here would be nice. Hmm, I wonder if miscellaneous and core hypervisor drivers should end up in drivers/platform: drivers/platform/hyperv drivers/platform/olpc drivers/platform/vmware drivers/platform/xen drivers/platform/x86 That makes sense to me, nice. But really we'd like to get VMCI into mainline first and move to a new place later if such a better place is found. Heh, no one wants to fight for something to help everyone out, they just want their own code accepted :) No, this is more about finding a person who would be maintaining it and thus would review our code. For now we got you tagged and do not want to let go of you :P Or should we maintain our own stuff and have Linus pull it directly, like Xen guys appear to be doing? Really, moving it is not an issue for us. No, I don't mind doing some of the review, and getting it to Linus to start with, but over time, having you all be the owners and push stuff directly to him is fine with me. So I agree, for now, let's leave it as-is. thanks, greg k-h ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
