On 2023-07-09 20:04:32+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sun, Jul 09, 2023 at 07:57:27PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > 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 ? That should work fine, too. Can you add the Fixes and Cc-stable tags in your tree and let the fs maintainers know? Or do you want me to split and resend the series? > > 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. Sounds good. Thomas
