On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 01:41:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > I have queued this. I expect to push this into the next merge window, > > > thus avoiding the need to document the need for "make clean" in my > > > pull request. ;-) > > > > Stupid question, is it really worth postponing it, considering that > > we've just introduced this series right now ? I mean, if the current > > usage is confusing, it's probably better to propose the fix before > > 6.1-final ? It's not a new feature here but rather a fix for a recently > > introduced one, thus I think it could be part of the next fix series. > > Rest assured I don't want to put a mess into your patch workflow, just > > asking :-) > > You lost me here. Ah sorry! > My intent is to push these nolicb patches into the upcoming v6.2 > merge window: > > 2318a710bffbd tools/nolibc: Fix missing strlen() definition and infinite loop with gcc-12 > 6937b8de8f1c3 tools/nolibc/string: Fix memcmp() implementation > e1bbfe393c900 selftests/nolibc: Add 7 tests for memcmp() > 3f2c1c45a3a9a selftests/nolibc: Always rebuild the sysroot when running a test > > I didn't see the problem until I queued the third patch (e1bbfe393c900), > and it is still in -rcu, not in v6.1. > > What am I missing here? I thought that since some of them are fixes, they would be pushed during 6.1-rc so that we don't release 6.1 with known defects. For example Rasmus' fix for memcmp() or the strlen() fix would IMHO make sense for this release since we're aware of the bugs and we have the fixes. The 3rd one is indeed an addition and in no way a fix and it can easily wait for 6.2. The 4th one is more of a usability fix but I agree that for this last one it's debatable, I was mostly seeing this as a possiility to avoid causing needless confusion. Hoping this clarifies my initial question. Thanks, Willy
