[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9c29f134-cf5c-4d21-bd66-9393db100f0c@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 06:54:04 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nolibc changes since 6.6-rc1 for linux-next
On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 09:22:59AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Hi Willy, Paul,
>
> On 2023-10-09 08:53:58+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 09:27:43AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > (...)
> > > The other approach involves rebasing the "nolibc/next" stack
> > > on top of the "nolibc/fixes" stack.
> >
> > That was my initial expectation as well, it's much easier, preserves
> > the patches ordering so it guarantees that all fixes are always present
> > in -next and that there won't be conflicts when they're finally submitted.
>
> The workflow Paul described indeed makes a lot of sense.
>
> I can redo it this afternoon.
>
> > [..]
>
> > > While in the area, would the following (absolutely not urgent or even
> > > particularly important) patch be a good idea? This gets rid of a line
> > > of noise from "git status" after running the tests.
> >
> > Good idea, feel free to propose a patch ;-)
>
> How about directly folding it into the original patch?
> I can take care of that later today, too.
Works for me, and thank you!
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists