Re: Upcoming nolibc pull request for the next merge window

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 08:49:40AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.

If the duplicate patches all have the same SHA-1 hashes, we should be
good, right?  Or am I missing something subtle here?

							Thanx, Paul