[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72=rs4vu5RMY=hf7Q3MZe34tbq4XyOAMyDy9Nx5D6EhFjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 11:29:30 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Jesung Yang <y.j3ms.n@...il.com>
Cc: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...nel.org>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] scripts: generate_rust_analyzer: Add
pin_init_internal deps
On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 10:26 AM Jesung Yang <y.j3ms.n@...il.com> wrote:
>
> The recent `syn` rewrite of pin-init [1] covers this as well. How do we
> usually handle this kind of overlap?
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20260111122554.2662175-4-lossin@kernel.org/
It should be fine, when applying that other series later on we will
get a conflict to be resolved, but that's it.
I wonder, though -- should these be applied as fixes? After all, even
the commit hash is provided there, so we could add a Fixes too. They
could also be backported if needed.
Thanks!
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists