From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel•org>
To: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel•org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au>,
MPTCP Linux <mptcp@lists•linux.dev>,
linux-next@vger•kernel.org, Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel•org>
Subject: Re: MPTCP tree in linux-next
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 14:30:35 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <38d74d9e-9da0-41b8-9721-3de9aa355c21@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f39f437e-7ff9-4f52-bc6f-974f54f42260@kernel.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3302 bytes --]
On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 01:35:51PM +0100, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Currently, we "export" commits from the TopGit tree in two branches:
> 'export' and 'export-net':
> - 'export-net' is on top of 'net', but it also contains patches that are
> useful for our CI: fixes from other trees, temp workarounds, instruction
> files for the CI, extra debugging, etc.
> - 'export' is on top of 'net-next' and 'export-net', so with the extra
> commits for the CI.
> For linux-next, I guess we should remove these extra commits for the CI,
> right?
Right, we only want changes that are intended to go to Linus.
> Would it be OK to add one new branch containing both the fixes (for
> 'net') and the new features (for 'net-next') on top of 'net-next'?
> Sometimes, we have new features that depend on fixes that are not in
> 'net' yet. Having one branch should help here.
One branch is certainly OK, though it is desirable to have fixes
separately since as well as the main -next branch we also build
pending-fixes which includes only fixes, the goal being to validate that
there's no unintended dependencies on non-fix changes. That's not
essential though.
> With one branch on top of 'net-next', we might still have issues if some
> of our fixes for 'net' cannot be applied on top of 'net-next'. A
> solution would be to have our branch on top of 'net' and containing:
> - MPTCP fixes
> - a merge commit with 'net-next'
> - MPTCP features
> Would that also work for you? Or do you prefer having only the MPTCP
> commits on top of 'net-next'? Or two branches, one on top of 'net' and
> one on top of 'net-next' (without the patches that depends on the ones
> in 'net', not in 'net-next' yet)?
We generally don't want that merge unless it'd get sent to Linus
eventually so your second option feels like a better choice here for my
money (Stephen might have a better idea here though?). I don't know how
promptly net-next gets the fixes merged up, or how often dependencies on
fixes is an issue. Do other net subtrees have workflows for this, I'd
imagine they run into similar issues?
> - Our patches are currently sent as "patches", not in a pull request, so
> patches will be applied with a different SHA.
The main issue with that would be that it would create work with the
duplicate commit detection and reporting we do which would get annoying
for all concerned. I suspect the actual merges would mostly end up
fine, git tends to figure this stuff out fairly well.
> We can certainly easily change both points if that would help you: when
> the sync is done, and send PR instead of patches. I guess we could have
> situations where when 'linux-next' is rebuilt, a patch would appear in
> both Networking and MPTCP trees, which can confuse Git. Maybe changing
> our workflow can help to prevent such issues.
If you were to switch to sending a PR of the actual commits in -next
that'd make life easier but that'd need you to work out the workflow
with whoever you're sending the patches to. I guess you could adopt a
hybrid flow where you use TopGit with regeneration until you send the PR
and then freeze the patches included in the PR? You could use the PR as
a base for new stuff while it's in flight. There are trees that are
managed in a patch queues that use a workflow a bit like that.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-19 14:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-19 12:35 MPTCP tree in linux-next Matthieu Baerts
2025-12-19 14:30 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2025-12-19 15:31 ` Matthieu Baerts
2025-12-19 15:49 ` Mark Brown
2025-12-19 15:51 ` Matthieu Baerts
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=38d74d9e-9da0-41b8-9721-3de9aa355c21@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel$(echo .)org \
--cc=linux-next@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=martineau@kernel$(echo .)org \
--cc=matttbe@kernel$(echo .)org \
--cc=mptcp@lists$(echo .)linux.dev \
--cc=sfr@canb$(echo .)auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox