Comment 25 for bug 1647485

12:26 <slangasek> can I get expedited SRU review of the above systemd SRU? It's thought to address an emergent regression introduced by changes in NVME support in the kernel, and blocks being able to run MAAS-based CI against machines with NVME

12:26 <slangasek> there's an existing SRU in xenial-proposed which hasn't been verified; we should just stack them

12:28 <sil2100> I could, but I am but a newb so someone would anyone have to double-check before I can approve it

12:28 <sil2100> Since bdmurray said I still need to do some coordinated reviews for now

12:31 <sil2100> slangasek: are all those patches present in systemd 323-10 from zesty? Or is that one not affected?

12:35 <rbasak> Is rharper happy to have the aging clock and verification reset?

12:41 <rbasak> slangasek: I'm not convinced about the reason for the urgency here. It looks like NVMe support was added in an SRU in November, and was done wrong. So surely we need to take more time and care this time, not less?

12:42 <rbasak> How long has this had time to bake in Zesty? It's not marked Fix Released yet.

12:47 <slangasek> rbasak: the NVME support was added in the kernel publication cycle that released to -updates at the beginning of this year