On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:46:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 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.
It would indeed be more logical as a general rule. However, here I don't
care as I don't see any issue caused by dropping it, I can adapt to what
is most convenient for most of us.
Let's maybe just wait a little bit for Christian to suggest what he
prefers then we can adapt.
> Or does Christian have some situation where it is necessary to make
> a coordinated vfs/nolibc change?
I don't think there's any need for coordination on this one.
Thanks,
willy
