On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:35 AM, ChristianEhrhardt
<email address hidden> wrote:
> Hi Dann,
> Sorry to ask, really I'm not neglecting all the work you do here.
> But it is a huge set of changes (17 files changed, 929 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-), and not all arm only) and I wonder as Zesty will never have the 4.13 kernel (as HWE is for LTS only).
No offense taken! It's a good question. I also have a tested backport
of the necessary changes to zesty's 4.10 kernel, I'm just awaiting
upstream acceptance of Vijay's patch before doing a final round of
testing and sending a PR to the kernel team.
WRT the patches impacting !arm, the only one I see here is
kvm-all-Pass-an-error-object-to-kvm_device_access.patch, which impacts
the error handling of kvm_device_access(). I'd be happy coordinate
appropriate testing on other architectures to mitigate the risk there.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:35 AM, ChristianEhrhardt
<email address hidden> wrote:
> Hi Dann,
> Sorry to ask, really I'm not neglecting all the work you do here.
> But it is a huge set of changes (17 files changed, 929 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-), and not all arm only) and I wonder as Zesty will never have the 4.13 kernel (as HWE is for LTS only).
No offense taken! It's a good question. I also have a tested backport
of the necessary changes to zesty's 4.10 kernel, I'm just awaiting
upstream acceptance of Vijay's patch before doing a final round of
testing and sending a PR to the kernel team.
WRT the patches impacting !arm, the only one I see here is Pass-an- error-object- to-kvm_ device_ access. patch, which impacts access( ). I'd be happy coordinate
kvm-all-
the error handling of kvm_device_
appropriate testing on other architectures to mitigate the risk there.
-dann