On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 12:27:46PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 8/17/23 10:30, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > On 2023-08-17 13:38:11+1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > The following commit is also in the vfs-brauner tree as a different commit
> > > (but the same patch):
> > >
> > > ba859b2e419c ("selftests/nolibc: drop test chmod_net")
> > >
> > > This is commit
> > >
> > > 49319832de90 ("selftests/nolibc: drop test chmod_net")
> > >
> > > in the vfs-brauner tree.
> >
> > I think we can drop the patch from the nolibc tree.
> > The patch is only really necessary in combination with
> > commit 18e66ae67673 ("proc: use generic setattr() for /proc/$PID/net")
> > which already is and should stay in the vfs tree.
>
> Thomas,
>
> Do the rest of the nolibc patches build without this if we were
> to drop this patch? Dorpping requires rebase and please see below.
>
> Willy, Paul,
>
> How do we want to handle this so we can avoid rebasing to keep
> the Commit IDs the same as one ones in Willy's nolibc branch?
The usual way would be for Willy to drop the patch, rebase, and republish
his branch. You would then discard the current branch and pull the
new one.
> I would recommend dropping this commit from vfs-brauner if it
> doesn't cause problems.
It might be good for nolibc patches to be going through Willy's tree.
Or does Christian have some situation where it is necessary to make
a coordinated vfs/nolibc change?
Thanx, Paul
