Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] selftests: Use "grep -E" instead of "egrep"

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 03:24:32PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 11/29/22 15:13, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 02:39:25PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > On 11/22/22 19:27, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> > > > It seems that patch #2~#6 has no conflicts with the other related
> > > > git tree, but patch #1 is conflicted with paulmck/linux-rcu.git dev.
> > > > 
> > > > What should I do?
> > > > 
> > > > Shuah, could you please apply patch #2~#6 to your linux-kselftest.git next branch and ignore patch #1?
> > > > 
> > > > And then let me send a seperate patch #1 rebased on paulmck/linux-rcu.git dev branch to rcu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > That won't work because linux-kselftest next won't have the linux-rcu content.
> > > I already picked patches 1,2,6
> > > 
> > > Patches 3 (powerpc) and 5 (net) go through powerpc and net trees. Please resend
> > > just those cc'ing the right people. get_maintainers.pl will give you the info.
> > > 
> > > As for patch 1 - perhaps the conflict could be resolved in next.
> > > 
> > > Paul, would you like me to drop rcutorture patch from linux-kselftest next?
> > 
> > I would be happy to carry the rcutorture patch, especially if doing so
> > makes life easier.  ;-)
> > 
> > But please do send me some sort of pointer to the patch.  Otherwise,
> > I guarantee you that I will queue the wrong one.
> 
> I have it queued up in linux-kselftest next for Linux 6.2-rc1 - if it is easier
> we can just resolve the merge in next.

Lazybones that I am, I would rather carry the patch than resolve
conflicts.  Especially given the tendency for new rcutorture patches to
appear, thus changing the conflict resolution.

My guess is that the patch is this one:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1669165413-12035-2-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx/

Or should I be looking elsewhere?

							Thanx, Paul