From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FA29EB64DC for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2023 18:22:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229591AbjGISWf (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jul 2023 14:22:35 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50434 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229579AbjGISWf (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jul 2023 14:22:35 -0400 Received: from todd.t-8ch.de (todd.t-8ch.de [159.69.126.157]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A466EC; Sun, 9 Jul 2023 11:22:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=t-8ch.de; s=mail; t=1688926952; bh=/mzXwqYhhaEswyZUayjPFVq1MZwMJWSKNHX6GofhBfo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=kUi+Q7ng8OGkIsJEI8Eh6pFJ/y49A02iZR4+6nAyx0EB0CzH/vzOkALcZo3oHp2qB wjHF8lPPVt5ozJy7UvfKktMc89wZpNXa5AzFtZ/JUoo6flsuKM7RuR9aKLmkhEd3AY u85aPxxjXG2Betc7k5uuWCYCMyQayMmVZQZ75yts= Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 20:22:31 +0200 From: Thomas =?utf-8?Q?Wei=C3=9Fschuh?= To: Willy Tarreau Cc: Zhangjin Wu , arnd@arndb.de, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] proc: proc_setattr for /proc/$PID/net Message-ID: <74eddce8-4f59-40c8-bc49-38c286a3cbb0@t-8ch.de> References: <20230624-proc-net-setattr-v1-0-73176812adee@weissschuh.net> <20230630140609.263790-1-falcon@tinylab.org> <20230709092947.GF9321@1wt.eu> <3261fa5b-b239-48a2-b1a8-34f80567cde1@t-8ch.de> <20230709172753.GA22287@1wt.eu> <20230709180432.GA22685@1wt.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20230709180432.GA22685@1wt.eu> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org On 2023-07-09 20:04:32+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sun, Jul 09, 2023 at 07:57:27PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > On 2023-07-09 19:27:53+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 09, 2023 at 07:10:58PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > > > On 2023-07-09 11:29:47+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 10:06:09PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > > > >> [..] > > > > > > > > > > Now queued, thanks! > > > > > Willy > > > > > > > > Don't we need an Ack from the fs maintainers for the patch to > > > > fs/proc/proc_net.c ? > > > > > > > > Personally I expected this series to go in via the fs tree because of > > > > that patch. > > > > > > Gasp! You're totally right, I confused it with a test only changing > > > the nolibc-test file, as the chmod_net test appeared as a dependency! > > > Let me drop it from the series and push again. > > > > I think if this patch now also goes in via both the nolibc/rcu trees and > > the fs tree it would not be great. > > > > The best way forward would probably for you to rebase your tree on top > > of mainline after the fs tree has introduced both patches of the series > > into Linus' tree and then you can drop your copy of the test removal. > > Yeah I agree. > > > I want to keep both patches together because I expect the fs change to > > be backported and if it is backported on its own it will break > > nolibc-test in those trees. > > OK but we can also fix the test regardless, and mark it for backport, no ? That should work fine, too. Can you add the Fixes and Cc-stable tags in your tree and let the fs maintainers know? Or do you want me to split and resend the series? > > But maybe I'm overthinking it, nobody is running nolibc-test on > > non-mainline kernels anyways and both patches can be split. > > I agree that we shouldn't grant too much importance to this test ;-) > I'm regularly seeing Sasha propose them for backports and am thinking > "ok it cannot hurt but I'm not convinced anyone will notice the fix". > > > If they are to be kept together and go via fs an Ack on the nolibc-test > > patch is probably needed, too. > > OK. Let's first see if someone from FS agrees on the change. Sounds good. Thomas