Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 13 Apr 2023 19:42:34 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/nolibc: Fix build of stdio.h due to header ordering
Message-ID: <ZDg/CsWixum2DdUM@1wt.eu>
References: <20230413-nolibc-stdio-fix-v1-1-fa05fc3ba1fe@kernel.org>
 <ZDg3K2nI+5l6as/L@1wt.eu>
 <c8021d03-4da0-4956-8744-4a3a1f8dd533@paulmck-laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c8021d03-4da0-4956-8744-4a3a1f8dd533@paulmck-laptop>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Paul,

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 10:33:54AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Queued and pushed, thank you both!

Thanks!

> With respect to -next, travel plans next week are causing me to instead
> update my rcu/next branch to the merge point of all of this coming
> merge window's pull requests.  Though it only makes a difference of a
> few days, as I would normally pull rcu/next back the Monday before the
> merge window opens.
> 
> There is some possibility that I will be off the grid for extended periods
> next week, which shouldn't make any difference for nolibc, aside from my
> possibly being unresponsive during that time.  The odds of an emergency
> fix to last merge window's changes are quite low this late in cycle,
> and I will be back before the next merge window opens.
> 
> Just let me know what I need to pull in, and I will do that early the
> week after this coming one.  Or you can buffer it up and send me one
> big series upon my return, your choice.  Either way works for me.  ;-)

Thanks for letting us know! Anyway there shouldn't be anything urgent
with nolibc. And if anyone would be blocked I would go back to the old
method where I queue that in a branch in my repo, so please travel in
peace ;-)

Thank you!
Willy