On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 02:57:52PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 1:28 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > It's been in -next a few days. Instead of slapping some hotfix on top > > that leaves the tree in a broken state the fix was squashed. In other > > words you would have to reapply the series anyway. > > That's not how stable branches work. The whole point of a stable > branch is that sha-s should not change. You don't squash things > after a branch is created. > That extra fix could have been easily added on top. > > > I mean, your mail is very short of "Linus, I'm subtly telling you what > > mean Christian did wrong and that he's rebased, which I know you hate > > and you have to resolve merge conflicts so please yell at him.". Come > > on. > > Not subtly. You made a mistake and instead of admitting it > you're doubling down on your wrong git process. > > > I work hard to effectively cooperate with you but until there is a > > good-faith mutual relationship on-list I don't want meaningful VFS work > > going through the bpf tree. You can take it or leave it and I would > > kindly ask Linus to respect that if he agrees. > > Look, you took bpf patches that BPF CI flagged as broken > and bpf maintainers didn't even ack. > Out of 4 patches that you applied one was yours that > touched VFS and 3 were bpf related. > That was a wtf moment, but we didn't complain, > since the feature is useful, so we were happy to see > it land even in this half broken form. > We applied your "stable" branch to bpf-next and added fixes on top. > Then you squashed "hotfix". > That made all of our fixes in bpf-next to become conflicts. > We cannot reapply your branch. We don't rebase the trees. > That was the policy for years. Started long ago during > net-next era and now in bpf-next too. > This time we were lucky that conflicts were not that bad > and it was easy enough for Linus to deal with them, > but that must not repeat. Ah, I see what you're complaining about now. But I'm still not happy that we didn't manage to resolve this confusion earlier. I was not clear in what way you did rely on that branch and that you relied on me not folding in the mutex fix especially because you didn't reply when I said I would fold it and you said that putting fixes on top wouldn't work upthread. If I'm aware that a branch is shared and relied upon then I won't change it. I would've immediately rolled it back would I have know that this causes issues for you but to me everything looked fine when I didn't hear back.
