On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 22:23 -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 8:52 PM Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 17:02 -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > > Please coordinate with me for doing this. Actually, if this sounds > > > interesting to you, I'll backport it myself, along with the missing > > > crypto/ bits, and send you a git bundle of patches for 5.5. > > > > > > In other words, just say "yes please", and I'll supply the rest. > > > > Either a git bundle or quilt patch series is fine. > > Voila: > > https://data.zx2c4.com/wireguard-5.5.8-20a586ec4f5acf195f71caea55c5a33c574078cb69712da591467ffc08dd8b72.zip > > That will apply on top of 5.5.8. Let me know if you have any problems, > and please poke me after this is done so I can test it out. [...] I'm looking through this now, and it seems like you've squashed commits together, e.g. patch #1 combines commits d0e7a2b6d069 and a8e41f6033a0. We generally prefer to have one patch per upstream commit, with a reference to that, so that when we rebase on a new upstream it's easy to see if a patch can be dropped because it's upstream. (Though in this case we know we can drop all those patches when moving to 5.6, and not before.) But that would also have made it easier to review any backporting adjustments you've made. Anyway, I'll continue to look. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your own home. - Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, `Good Omens'
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part