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:   Sun, 9 Jul 2023 19:57:27 +0200
From:   Thomas =?utf-8?Q?Wei=C3=9Fschuh?= <thomas@t-8ch.de>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc:     Zhangjin Wu <falcon@tinylab.org>, 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: <df91b1d3-2c66-4a6b-9a8a-544679bc09a8@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20230709172753.GA22287@1wt.eu>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Willy,

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.

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.

But maybe I'm overthinking it, nobody is running nolibc-test on
non-mainline kernels anyways and both patches can be split.

If they are to be kept together and go via fs an Ack on the nolibc-test
patch is probably needed, too.

Thomas