On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 13:55 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-08-07 at 15:39 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > 0003 is looking pretty good, too, but I think we
> > should get some more eyes on it, given the complexity.
>
> Attached rebased version of 0003.
Is someone else planning to look at 0003, or should I just proceed? It
seems to be clearly wanted, and I think it's better to get it in this
'fest than to wait.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
