On Sun, Jul 09, 2023 at 07:57:27PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > Hi Willy, > > On 2023-07-09 19:27:53+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 09, 2023 at 07:10:58PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > > On 2023-07-09 11:29:47+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 10:06:09PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > > >> [..] > > > > > > > > Now queued, thanks! > > > > Willy > > > > > > Don't we need an Ack from the fs maintainers for the patch to > > > fs/proc/proc_net.c ? > > > > > > Personally I expected this series to go in via the fs tree because of > > > that patch. > > > > Gasp! You're totally right, I confused it with a test only changing > > the nolibc-test file, as the chmod_net test appeared as a dependency! > > Let me drop it from the series and push again. > > I think if this patch now also goes in via both the nolibc/rcu trees and > the fs tree it would not be great. > > The best way forward would probably for you to rebase your tree on top > of mainline after the fs tree has introduced both patches of the series > into Linus' tree and then you can drop your copy of the test removal. Yeah I agree. > I want to keep both patches together because I expect the fs change to > be backported and if it is backported on its own it will break > nolibc-test in those trees. OK but we can also fix the test regardless, and mark it for backport, no ? > But maybe I'm overthinking it, nobody is running nolibc-test on > non-mainline kernels anyways and both patches can be split. I agree that we shouldn't grant too much importance to this test ;-) I'm regularly seeing Sasha propose them for backports and am thinking "ok it cannot hurt but I'm not convinced anyone will notice the fix". > If they are to be kept together and go via fs an Ack on the nolibc-test > patch is probably needed, too. OK. Let's first see if someone from FS agrees on the change. Thanks for the clarification, Willy
