Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Aug 2023 09:52:56 -0600 | Subject | Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the nolibc tree | From | Shuah Khan <> |
| |
On 8/18/23 07:59, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 8/18/23 07:27, Christian Brauner wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 01:41:45PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 09:39:09PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:46:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 12:27:46PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: >>>>>> On 8/17/23 10:30, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: >>>>>>> On 2023-08-17 13:38:11+1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>>>>>> The following commit is also in the vfs-brauner tree as a different commit >>>>>>>> (but the same patch): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ba859b2e419c ("selftests/nolibc: drop test chmod_net") >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is commit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 49319832de90 ("selftests/nolibc: drop test chmod_net") >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> in the vfs-brauner tree. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we can drop the patch from the nolibc tree. >>>>>>> The patch is only really necessary in combination with >>>>>>> commit 18e66ae67673 ("proc: use generic setattr() for /proc/$PID/net") >>>>>>> which already is and should stay in the vfs tree. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thomas, >>>>>> >>>>>> Do the rest of the nolibc patches build without this if we were >>>>>> to drop this patch? Dorpping requires rebase and please see below. >>>>>> >>>>>> Willy, Paul, >>>>>> >>>>>> How do we want to handle this so we can avoid rebasing to keep >>>>>> the Commit IDs the same as one ones in Willy's nolibc branch? >>>>> >>>>> The usual way would be for Willy to drop the patch, rebase, and republish >>>>> his branch. You would then discard the current branch and pull the >>>>> new one. >>>>> >>>>>> I would recommend dropping this commit from vfs-brauner if it >>>>>> doesn't cause problems. >>>>> >>>>> It might be good for nolibc patches to be going through Willy's tree. >>>> >>>> It would indeed be more logical as a general rule. However, here I don't >>>> care as I don't see any issue caused by dropping it, I can adapt to what >>>> is most convenient for most of us. >>>> >>>> Let's maybe just wait a little bit for Christian to suggest what he >>>> prefers then we can adapt. >>>> >>>>> Or does Christian have some situation where it is necessary to make >>>>> a coordinated vfs/nolibc change? >>>> >>>> I don't think there's any need for coordination on this one. >>> >>> It is always good when either option can be make to work. ;-) >> >> The patch in the vfs tree will make the test fail so it makes sense to >> have both go in together. I would normally be happy to drop it but I'm >> rather unenthusiastic in this particular case because I replied to this >> almost 5 weeks ago on Thursday, July 13 and since then this has been in >> -next. >> > > I totally understand you being unenthusiastic. Considering summer > vacation schedules and all, emails get missed at times. > > I sincerely request you to consider dropping as it is the simpler route > for all involved. >
Christian,
Please let us know if my request failed to raise your enthusiasm level. We will go to our plan b of having Willy drop the patch, resend the pull request to me ....
thanks, -- Shuah
| |