Hi Pasha, On Tue, Aug 05 2025, Pasha Tatashin wrote: >> 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. I didn't mean this for the memfd patches, only for libluo. I think the memfd patches are in decent shape. They aren't pristine, but I do think they are good enough to land and be improved iteratively. If you think otherwise, then what do you reckon needs to be done to make them _not_ RFC? -- Regards, Pratyush Yadav
