From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-x442.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::442]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iOYQC-0001Xf-8u for linux-um@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 02:36:49 +0000 Received: by mail-pf1-x442.google.com with SMTP id y5so4299479pfo.4 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 19:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 11:36:40 +0900 Message-ID: From: Hajime Tazaki Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/47] lkl: architecture skeleton for Linux kernel library In-Reply-To: References: <0b1464dd4904ee2b049fef624895ead3fe6aa555.1571798507.git.thehajime@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-um" Errors-To: linux-um-bounces+geert=linux-m68k.org@lists.infradead.org To: richard.weinberger@gmail.com Cc: levex@linux.com, mattator@gmail.com, cem@freebsd.org, tavi.purdila@gmail.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, staal1978@gmail.com, motomuman@gmail.com, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, retrage01@gmail.com, petrosagg@gmail.com, edisonmcastro@hotmail.com, xiaoj@google.com, mark@stillwell.me, pscollins@google.com, phh@phh.me, sigmaepsilon92@gmail.com, luca.dariz@gmail.com, liuyuan@google.com # dropping two Cc's since those are not reachable.. On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 06:40:05 +0900, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 6:39 AM Hajime Tazaki wrote: > > > > From: Octavian Purdila > > +LINUX KERNEL LIBRARY > > +M: Octavian Purdila > > +M: Hajime Tazaki > > +L: linux-kernel-library@freelists.org > > +S: Maintained > > +F: arch/lkl/ > > +F: tools/lkl/ > > + > > The arch/lkl path is outdated. Ah, should be updated. We will fix it. > So, you and Octavian will maintain LKL? Yes. > Do you want to be sub maintainers of arch/um/lkl and send pull requests to me > or co-maintain the whole UML ecosystem together with me and Anton? > > I'm perfectly fine with both variants but tend to the latter one since > it is less overhead. I was not thinking well enough for the maintenance procedure; I agree that the latter case is better, but for the early stage of this integration, I think starting with the former (send pull-req from LKL to you/Anton) would be nice. LKL is now on github and utilizes several useful features (CI test at each pull request, issue tracking, wiki), and if possible I'd also like to migrate those tools, or make them available to UML because this makes easier maintenance for LKL. What do you think ? > In case you need your PGP keys signed, next week I'll be in Lyon at > OSS, ELCE, ... I won't be there, unfortunately.. -- Hajime _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um