Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] selftests: damon: add access_memory to .gitignore

[SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 21:07:34 +0100 Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 12.02.24 20:53, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 20:43:39 +0100 Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> This binary is missing in the .gitignore and stays as an untracked file.
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
> >> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com>
> > 
> > 'checkpatch.pl' complains as below:
> > 
> >     WARNING: Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Closes: with a URL to the report
> >     #11:
> >     Reported-by: Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
> >     Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com>
> > 
> > I guess the 'Closes:' could this link?
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/AS8P193MB1285C963658008F1B2702AF7E4792@AS8P193MB1285.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
> >
> 
> I will add the Closes tag with the right link, thank you.

Thank you :)

> 
> > Also, note that this conflicts on mm-unstable.
> 
> Should I use mm-unstable as basis to make sure no conflicts are introduced?

DAMON selftest patches could be merged in mm-unstable or linux-kselftest
depending on cases.

If you rebase this on mm-unstable, it might conflict on linux-kselftest.
Letting Shuah merge this on linux-kselftest and asking Linus Torvalds to fix
the conflict in next merge window could be one possible option.

Or, making this split out of this series, rebase on mm-unstable, and asking
Andrew Morton to carry may be another option.

Andrew and Shuah, may I ask your opinions?


Thanks,
SJ

[...]