Re: [PATCH RFC V11 0/5] Basic guest memory introspection support

[Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>]

On 09/02/14 21:53, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:37:09PM +0300, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>> I apologize, I've sent this as a duplicate V10.
>> Here it is, resent (correctly) as V11. Sorry.
> 
> You also have the RFC part on the patchset. Is that intentional?
> Some maintainers (looks at himself) ignore (well, put it in the
> 'todo pile' to be exact) patches like that until they are
> more mature (non-RFC) and then they will review them.
> 
> I think the RFC part of the patches has been rubbed up as
> the design is pretty baked?

Thanks for the comment, I was actually going to ask about that. I
thought I'd keep the "RFC" in the title until I get Acks for all the
patches, and then switch the prefix to "PATCH", but I'm not sure what
the etiquette is in these cases.

Also, in this particular case I've reworked the 4/5 patch (the page
fault injection patch), so I thought it might be proper to keep the
"RFC" part for the whole series.

I'll switch to "PATCH" for the next series.


Thanks,
Razvan Cojocaru