On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 11:03:22PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 07:47:06 +0200 Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 10:32:42PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > But whatever. I mean - hopefully there aren't any conflicts in the ~50 > > > networking files you touch. I just wish that people didn't pipe up with > > > the tree wide changes right after the merge window. Feels like the > > > worst possible timing. > > > > Oh, if the timing is what makes this especially worrisome, I have > > no qualms about rebasing much later, and reposting this series then. > > I'll do that. > > Cool, thanks! I promise to not be grumpy if you repost around rc6 :) One way of making things less painful for the stable branch and for the upstream branch is to *add* new helpers instead of playing replacement games like s/prandom_u32_max/get_random_u32_below/. This is what causes the patch conflict problems. One advantage of at least adding the new functions to the stable branches, even if we don't do the wholesale replacement, is that it makes it much less likely that a backported patch, which uses the new API, won't fail to compile --- and of course, the major headache case is one where it's not noticed at first because it didn't get picked up in people's test compiles until after the Linux x.y.z release has been pushed out. Whether it's worth doing the wholesale replacement is a different question, but separating "add the new functions with one or two use cases so the functions are actulaly _used_" from the "convert the world to use the new functions" from the "remove the old functions", might life easier. - Ted
