On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 5:48 AM Rosen Penev <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 8:31 PM Ilya Lipnitskiy > <ilya.lipnits...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:57 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <ja...@zx2c4.com> wrote: > > > > > > I've backported WireGuard patch-by patch to 5.4, in a series that you > > > can simply apply to your existing 5.4 kernels. I can prepare that for > > > you guys tomorrow. That way, you'll have the kernel module in both 5.4 > > > and 5.10 through the same mechanisms with the same code. That might > > > save a lot of the complexity that this discussion is veering toward. > > > > > > How's that sound? > > I've implemented the virtual package way I proposed in an earlier > > email. The changes are part of this pull request: > > https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/3885 > > > > If the reviewers are happy with my changes I think we are done. > > Otherwise, please chime in if we'd rather go the backport way with > > Jason's help. > The backport route is annoying as it means it would need to be > maintained separately from the module. > > It's a moot point anyway. The release will be using the module. This > only concerns snapshot which will migrate to 5.10 eventually.
I'm not sure I understand your logic. The suggestion here is to use the backported patches _instead of_ the module. Then, they'd be maintained alongside the kernel, and the wireguard package itself would be the same thing for both 5.4 and 5.10. There'd be one thing to maintain rather than two. This sounds like less work. Jason _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
