On 08/13/19 13:23, Roman Kagan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:10:27AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:Not my place to say authoritatively, but:On 08/12/19 20:43, Roman Kagan wrote:Is reloading the module from scratch ruled out completely?On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 04:07:00PM +0000, Roman Kagan via Groups.Io wrote:So it looks like the issue can't be solved without making OpenSSL awareOn Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 07:39:14PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:It doesn't :( It just gets slightly further and hits another staticOn 08/07/19 19:41, Andrew Fish wrote:Since, as you point out below, the problem only affects the essentiallyOn Aug 7, 2019, at 10:29 AM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...> wrote:
- it would be a first, as much as I can say,
- it would duplicate (in purpose) an existing facility.
Personally I'd expect it to be rejected, but it's not up to me. If
you're willing to "build one to (possibly) throw away", that could be
the most direct way to get authoritative (= maintainer) feedback.
I'd try to cook up a patch for that unless there's a strong no-go.