Message ID | 20240913130544.2398678-1-hca@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | s390/vdso: getrandom() vdso implementation | expand |
Hey Heiko, On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 03:05:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > Hi Jason, > > quite late but finally the s390 vdso getrandom implementation which applies > on top of your random git tree. > > As a prerequisite this requires some changes to s390 core code to allow > alternatives in vdso code. It is fine when all of this gets routed via your > tree. On first glance, this series looks perfect. I can't comment too much on the s390 parts, but first pass of the crypto/vdso/api parts looks spot on. Nice going. Were you thinking you'd like me to take these via the random.git tree for 6.12 next week, or were you thinking of delaying it a release and taking it into the arch tree for 6.13? Jason
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 03:52:39PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hey Heiko, > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 03:05:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > > > quite late but finally the s390 vdso getrandom implementation which applies > > on top of your random git tree. > > > > As a prerequisite this requires some changes to s390 core code to allow > > alternatives in vdso code. It is fine when all of this gets routed via your > > tree. > > On first glance, this series looks perfect. I can't comment too much on > the s390 parts, but first pass of the crypto/vdso/api parts looks spot > on. Nice going. > > Were you thinking you'd like me to take these via the random.git tree > for 6.12 next week, or were you thinking of delaying it a release and > taking it into the arch tree for 6.13? If you did want it to be in 6.12, assuming this series continues to look good, I think we'd still want it to be in -next for at least a week, so maybe that'd take the form of me sending an additional late pull during the merge window for this. Either way, I'll defer to your judgement here, as most of these changes are fiddly s390 things more than anything else. Jason
Hi Jason, > > On first glance, this series looks perfect. I can't comment too much on > > the s390 parts, but first pass of the crypto/vdso/api parts looks spot > > on. Nice going. > > > > Were you thinking you'd like me to take these via the random.git tree > > for 6.12 next week, or were you thinking of delaying it a release and > > taking it into the arch tree for 6.13? > > If you did want it to be in 6.12, assuming this series continues to look > good, I think we'd still want it to be in -next for at least a week, so > maybe that'd take the form of me sending an additional late pull during > the merge window for this. Either way, I'll defer to your judgement > here, as most of these changes are fiddly s390 things more than anything > else. This series is intended to go into 6.12. I don't see a reason to delay this for a full release cycle. If something breaks we'll fix it, as usual. So a late pull request would be perfectly fine. Alternatively we can take this via s390 also for a second pull request; whatever you prefer and is less work for you.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 04:29:24PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > Hi Jason, > > > > On first glance, this series looks perfect. I can't comment too much on > > > the s390 parts, but first pass of the crypto/vdso/api parts looks spot > > > on. Nice going. > > > > > > Were you thinking you'd like me to take these via the random.git tree > > > for 6.12 next week, or were you thinking of delaying it a release and > > > taking it into the arch tree for 6.13? > > > > If you did want it to be in 6.12, assuming this series continues to look > > good, I think we'd still want it to be in -next for at least a week, so > > maybe that'd take the form of me sending an additional late pull during > > the merge window for this. Either way, I'll defer to your judgement > > here, as most of these changes are fiddly s390 things more than anything > > else. > > This series is intended to go into 6.12. I don't see a reason to delay > this for a full release cycle. If something breaks we'll fix it, as usual. > > So a late pull request would be perfectly fine. Alternatively we can > take this via s390 also for a second pull request; whatever you prefer > and is less work for you. Okay, great. I'll queue it up then in random.git. Jason