From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mta0.migadu.com (out-178.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99D5B3BB69D for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2026 20:20:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.178 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786998023; cv=none; b=c48UK6Kvb3mTubL8Nm/dq6bra11xpndUihmIbg0nJiHywIvLZ/4XDGWc3i4co8P8fas+iStNftte4svqGSJgwm05PYKA4YkvRb1mLNW5UD0K+PJQwFjUlxeRwgS7OsvDxR1ltw5Q3hKWBklG87qJkZLVrSckgW8UZwaC2UBug2o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786998023; c=relaxed/simple; bh=aKzRFlN+wa+yi0QlCfDbduVxghERY/ArzpGMrSlnSX8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=tHu/Eg3TELQVYzCnC7A/9evYcGOxsNIxHcWYPIOHgzJrTp6zkGEWaJH0KvanmsrSh0Kwx69jYQ/byddjvR9jEiJ94WnpW9AH6kKGscoVz6W20fCyqHgjJ9yYaAZNw5mL5VzNFKk56fhkDtrdpPC79b5LhvzTw2sXODVT4NGEDWw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=Br4bvRRQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.178 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="Br4bvRRQ" X-Envelope-To: sashiko@lists.linux.dev DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=aKzRFlN+wa+yi0QlCfDbduVxghERY/ArzpGMrSlnSX8=; c=simple/simple; d=linux.dev; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=key1; t=1786998019; v=1; x=1787602819; b=Br4bvRRQNOzGnP0wO11DcSF7Uwcs6L2MwS6+JHCjvJUSZ5v0M+G8Ae9iKO3ECFlefrJOPIit quTCl9GyRspui0oDo0itUqO3nnRst6Clxm7SxhgyYL6+TyBNRCoXTR5Z13947tarMwgOILeZvPH tch1lrxp80ni9wxoH6JmMPfk= X-Envelope-To: sashiko@lists.linux.dev Received: from castle.c.googlers.com (35.227.148.244) by mta11.migadu.com with ESMTPS id fff5e3c1b0b090c7; Mon, 17 Aug 2026 20:20:19 +0000 X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT From: Roman Gushchin To: robin@snyders.xyz Cc: sashiko@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [Feature request] Support b4 prerequisite-patch-id dependencies when applying patchsets In-Reply-To: (robin@snyders.xyz's message of "Wed, 12 Aug 2026 11:33:11 +0200") References: User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.15; emacs 30.2 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 20:20:12 +0000 Message-ID: <7ia4h5ksebyb.fsf@castle.c.googlers.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: sashiko@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain robin@snyders.xyz writes: > Hi, > > I ran into a Failed To Apply result in Sashiko for a kernel patch series that uses b4 prerequisite dependencies. > > Affected Sashiko patchset: > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260812-submit-qcom-smbx-send-v1-v2-0-f504b8f9bfad%40snyders.xyz > > Lore thread: > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260812-submit-qcom-smbx-send-v1-v2-0-f504b8f9bfad@snyders.xyz/ > > The series is based on: > > base-commit: 99b38cda3f4c486cfbc40f3c8ede1703594e9f13 > > and declares five prerequisite patches using b4 dependency metadata: > > prerequisite-patch-id: 3d8a9cf43b5e5eac64a60aeec5e9c90880bcf792 > prerequisite-patch-id: de3e3b494f9644596cfa4cafc362ca0b48288c45 > prerequisite-patch-id: d5e22a0fe7cd55374f60d7c2cb14ed3df8f94e0b > prerequisite-patch-id: 9eafa41402e97d6a3e5369bec46df4e9db3d2af6 > prerequisite-patch-id: 5638b901cd10773fa9485605f84b25a1dd826a84 > > Those five prerequisites are the preceding qcom_smbx fixes series: > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260812-qcom-smbx-fixes-v1-0-eb48246be599@snyders.xyz/ > > The SMB5 v2 series intentionally depends on that fixes series because > both modify overlapping areas of > drivers/power/supply/qcom_smbx.c. Applying the v2 directly to the base > tree without first applying the declared prerequisites is therefore > expected to fail. > > On the Sashiko page, the result is Failed To Apply, Baseline shows > Selected: -, and no AI review is run. From looking at the current > baseline/application logic, it appears Sashiko applies the patches in > the current patchset to a candidate baseline but does not resolve and > apply b4 prerequisite-patch-id dependencies first. > > Expected behaviour would be roughly: > > Resolve the base commit. > Resolve each prerequisite-patch-id from public-inbox/Lore. > Apply the prerequisite patches in dependency order. > Apply the patchset being reviewed. > Run the normal review on the resulting tree. > > b4 itself supports this dependency metadata, and b4 prep --check-deps can validate that the dependency chain is available and applicable. > > If automatically resolving prerequisite-patch-id is intentionally out > of scope, it would still be useful for Failed To Apply to report that > unresolved prerequisite metadata was present, rather than making the > failure look like the submitted series itself does not apply. > > Please let me know if you would like any additional reproduction > details or the exact b4 commands used to prepare the series. b4 support is in progress: https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/389 Thanks