[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72=FuzBB03nOEKvRnYn0y-NLkJ0R+TaSENNffh-zF_WtDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 19:42:33 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Fiona Behrens <me@...enk.dev>, Jocelyn Falempe <jfalempe@...hat.com>,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] rust: security: replace `core::mem::zeroed` with `pin_init::zeroed`
On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 5:38 PM Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> There are no pin-init changes in this patchset (in v2 there were, but I
> took them for v6.16), so I think it should go via the rust tree.
Sounds good.
> We can of course wait with patches 3-11 until the next cycle and let
> maintainers pick them individually, but since they are so small, I think
> it's easier to just pick them all at once via the rust tree.
Yeah, either way is fine. I would say let's just land the ones we get
Acked-bys for, even if they are not all.
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists