[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b15fa4c4-cb1f-4bf6-af04-5d549f326f95@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:31:37 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Upcoming nolibc pull request for the next merge window
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 08:49:40AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> 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.
If the duplicate patches all have the same SHA-1 hashes, we should be
good, right? Or am I missing something subtle here?
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists