Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 5:20 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> In short I don't think this change will introduce any regressions. > > I think the series looks fine, but I also think the long explanation > (that I snipped in this reply) in the cover letter should be there in > the kernel tree. When I have been adding patchsets like this to my tree I have been doing merge --no-ff so I can create a place for explanations like this, and I will do the same with this. I already have Alexey Gladkov's proc changes, and my next_tgid cleanup on a branch of proc changes in my tree already. > So if you send me this as a single pull request, with that explanation > (either in the email or in the signed tag - although you don't seem to > use tags normally - so that we have that extra commentary for > posterity, that sounds good. I hope you don't mind if I combind this with some other proc changes. If you do mind I will put this on a separate topic branch. Right now it just seems easier for me to keep track of if I keep my number of topics limited. > That said, this fix seems to not matter for normal operation, so > unless it's holding up something important, maybe it's 5.8 material? Yes, this is 5.8 material. I am just aiming to get review before I put in linux-next, and later send it to your for merging. I should have mentioned that in the cover letter. I am noticing that removing technical debt without adding more technical debt is quite a challenge. Eric
