Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the nolibc tree

[Shuah Khan]

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.

thanks,
-- Shuah