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;
Message-ID: <5d9f724d-4c45-f843-04b3-60a907b9b127@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:49:40 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: Upcoming nolibc pull request for the next merge window
Content-Language: en-US
To:     paulmck@kernel.org, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Thomas_Wei=c3=9fschuh?= <thomas@t-8ch.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
References: <7afafb6c-9664-44a1-bc8f-d20239db1dd5@paulmck-laptop>
 <20230722130120.6e4c0eab@canb.auug.org.au>
 <2c54d017-226e-41c3-a767-a607942ecba5@paulmck-laptop>
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <2c54d017-226e-41c3-a767-a607942ecba5@paulmck-laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

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.

thanks,
-- Shuah