Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:31:37 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | 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@kernel.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
| |