Re: [PATCH modules-next v10 00/13] kallsyms: reliable symbol->address lookup with /proc/kallmodsyms

[Luis Chamberlain]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:08:12PM +0000, Nick Alcock wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2023, Luis Chamberlain stated:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 11:53:29PM +0000, Nick Alcock wrote:
> >> [most people trimmed from the Cc: list for this procedural question]
> >> 
> >> On 9 Feb 2023, Nick Alcock outgrape:
> >> > I am going to split this whole series into:
> >> >
> >> > 1. A series of patches (123 of them at present) Cc:ed to subsystem
> >> > maintainers as well as you, to comment out the MODULE_LICENSE usage.
> >> > These patches will have Suggested-by you. This series is rebased against
> >> > the latest modules-next and revalidated, and is ready to be mailed out;
> >> > will do so shortly.
> >> 
> >> One quick question: if/when you're happy with this series, are you
> >> planning to take it yourself via modules-next?
> >
> > It seems some maintainers are already taking patches in, so let's see
> > what folks take in, then if there are not takers I can just take what is
> > not merged on linux-next through modules-next.
> > 
> > So try to get them into each subsystem tree, and around rc3 send the
> > ones that are not merged and I'll just take them into modules-next.
> 
> Sounds good! I can trivially regenerate a new patch series containing
> only the still-missing bits without needing to do anything like track
> who took things, because nearly all of this is automated anyway.

Fantastic.

> ... at least I can if I can figure out where all the subsystem trees
> that people took them into are (not everyone might mention when they
> take one).

This is why I use linux-next. It represents all the latest trees merged.

> I might miss a few, but I suspect that's not a problem:
> taking the same commit by two different routes does not constitute a
> conflict, at least on its own.

Right.

  Luis