linux-kernel - Re: Upcoming nolibc pull request for the next merge window

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5d9f724d-4c45-f843-04b3-60a907b9b127@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:49:40 -0600
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Upcoming nolibc pull request for the next merge window

On 7/21/23 22:48, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 01:01:20PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 10:39:48 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is just to let you know that Willy and I are adding co-maintainers
>>> for nolibc.  Shuah Khan will join me as administrative maintainer,
>>> and will be sending the pull request to you for the next merge window.
>>>
>>> Similarly, Thomas Weißschuh will be joining Willy as technical maintainer
>>> for nolibc.  With luck, this won't affect you, but in case you come across
>>> a nolibc issue, please reach out to Thomas as well as Willy, Shuah,
>>> and myself.  There will of course be an update to the MAINTAINERS file
>>> in the near future, but just to let you know in the meantime.
>>
>> Would it make sense to add a separate nolibc branch to linux-next (and
>> no longer merge it into the rcu branch?  Or are there dependencies
>> between the two?
> 
> Dependencies between nolibc and RCU are extremely rare, so it might well
> make sense to have a separate branch.
> 
> Maybe nolibc/next from either the -rcu tree or Shuah's tree?  Shuah,
> would something else work better for you?
> 

We probably have to add linux-kselftest nolibc and rcu nolibc since
we are planning to alternating pull requests?

Paul, you and I have to make sure we don't have duplicate patches
in our nolibc branches.

thanks,
-- Shuah