> To add some context: one of the reasons to include it in the series as > an RFC at the end was to showcase the userspace side of the API and have > a way for people to see how it can be used. Seeing an API in action > provides useful context for reviewing patches. > > I think Pasha forgot to add the RFC tags when he created v2, since it is > only meant to be RFC right now and not proper patches. Correct, I accidently removed RFC from memfd patches in the version. I will include memfd preservation as RFCv1 in v3 submission. > > The point of moving out of tree was also brought up in the live update > call and I agree with Jason's feedback on it. The plan is to drop it > from the series in the next revision, and just leave a reference to it > in the cover letter instead. I will drop libluo/luoctl and will add a pointer to an external repo where they can be accessed from. Pasha
