| Message ID | 20240409212758.380547-2-ju.o@free.fr |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2,1/2] package/rdma-core: bump to version v50.0 | expand |
On 09/04/2024 23:27, Julien Olivain wrote: > For change log, see: > https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/releases/tag/v51.0 > > Signed-off-by: Julien Olivain <ju.o@free.fr> > --- > Changes v1 -> v2: > - introduced this new patch for v51.0 bump. Why did you do this in two separate patches, instead of a single patch that bumps to v51.0? Regards, Arnout > --- > package/rdma-core/rdma-core.hash | 2 +- > package/rdma-core/rdma-core.mk | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.hash b/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.hash > index 27fe7e208d8..f8b01e882dc 100644 > --- a/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.hash > +++ b/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.hash > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ > # Locally calculated > -sha256 ecb866caaec7ce13f40074c769860f9c36c3a37a70913c5218217e3293d7cb11 rdma-core-50.0.tar.gz > +sha256 a4065b0454249839dc75b61c6ee428e917d9cddf964ff7a33d479f00d1264ba0 rdma-core-51.0.tar.gz > sha256 99e0df1d009a21d0dfb031600c550fd8f4efc0c6b2a4ef8b34a995aa6f79c9f4 COPYING.BSD_MIT > sha256 8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643 COPYING.GPL2 > sha256 c46a557f25b8ef9bec76526c4e593fc13e6cba27e7ba30d73b6497a689cf06f6 COPYING.md > diff --git a/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.mk b/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.mk > index 7818b396a46..834d9ea3efe 100644 > --- a/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.mk > +++ b/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.mk > @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ > # > ################################################################################ > > -RDMA_CORE_VERSION = 50.0 > +RDMA_CORE_VERSION = 51.0 > RDMA_CORE_SITE = $(call github,linux-rdma,rdma-core,v$(RDMA_CORE_VERSION)) > RDMA_CORE_LICENSE = GPL-2.0 or BSD-2-Clause > RDMA_CORE_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING.GPL2 COPYING.BSD_MIT COPYING.md
Hi Arnout, On 10/04/2024 20:04, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > On 09/04/2024 23:27, Julien Olivain wrote: >> For change log, see: >> https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/releases/tag/v51.0 >> >> Signed-off-by: Julien Olivain <ju.o@free.fr> >> --- >> Changes v1 -> v2: >> - introduced this new patch for v51.0 bump. > > Why did you do this in two separate patches, instead of a single patch > that bumps to v51.0? Well, the v50.0 patch was waiting in patchwork for quite some time. It is still valid as-is. I just wrote the v51.0 on top of it and sent both as a remainder that v50.0 was still there. Do you prefer I send a squashed version of those in a v3? Best regards, Julien. > > Regards, > Arnout > >> --- >> package/rdma-core/rdma-core.hash | 2 +- >> package/rdma-core/rdma-core.mk | 2 +- >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.hash >> b/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.hash >> index 27fe7e208d8..f8b01e882dc 100644 >> --- a/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.hash >> +++ b/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.hash >> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ >> # Locally calculated >> -sha256 >> ecb866caaec7ce13f40074c769860f9c36c3a37a70913c5218217e3293d7cb11 >> rdma-core-50.0.tar.gz >> +sha256 >> a4065b0454249839dc75b61c6ee428e917d9cddf964ff7a33d479f00d1264ba0 >> rdma-core-51.0.tar.gz >> sha256 >> 99e0df1d009a21d0dfb031600c550fd8f4efc0c6b2a4ef8b34a995aa6f79c9f4 >> COPYING.BSD_MIT >> sha256 >> 8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643 >> COPYING.GPL2 >> sha256 >> c46a557f25b8ef9bec76526c4e593fc13e6cba27e7ba30d73b6497a689cf06f6 >> COPYING.md >> diff --git a/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.mk >> b/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.mk >> index 7818b396a46..834d9ea3efe 100644 >> --- a/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.mk >> +++ b/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.mk >> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ >> # >> >> ################################################################################ >> -RDMA_CORE_VERSION = 50.0 >> +RDMA_CORE_VERSION = 51.0 >> RDMA_CORE_SITE = $(call >> github,linux-rdma,rdma-core,v$(RDMA_CORE_VERSION)) >> RDMA_CORE_LICENSE = GPL-2.0 or BSD-2-Clause >> RDMA_CORE_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING.GPL2 COPYING.BSD_MIT COPYING.md
On 10/04/2024 20:22, Julien Olivain wrote: > Hi Arnout, > > On 10/04/2024 20:04, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >> On 09/04/2024 23:27, Julien Olivain wrote: >>> For change log, see: >>> https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/releases/tag/v51.0 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Julien Olivain <ju.o@free.fr> >>> --- >>> Changes v1 -> v2: >>> - introduced this new patch for v51.0 bump. >> >> Why did you do this in two separate patches, instead of a single patch that >> bumps to v51.0? > > Well, the v50.0 patch was waiting in patchwork for quite some time. It is still > valid as-is. You anyway marked that one as Superseded, so it's not really relevant that it was already on patchwork. > I just wrote the v51.0 on top of it and sent both as a remainder that v50.0 was > still there. > > Do you prefer I send a squashed version of those in a v3? Yes! Well, it's not super important now because we can also easily do that while applying, but it's less work for us if you do it :-) It's just that because it was in two separate patches, I thought there was a reason for it (e.g. that the v50.0 bump was a security bump and should be applied to 2024.02.x as well). Regards, Arnout
Hi Arnout, On 10/04/2024 20:30, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > On 10/04/2024 20:22, Julien Olivain wrote: >> Hi Arnout, >> >> On 10/04/2024 20:04, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >>> On 09/04/2024 23:27, Julien Olivain wrote: >>>> For change log, see: >>>> https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/releases/tag/v51.0 >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Olivain <ju.o@free.fr> >>>> --- >>>> Changes v1 -> v2: >>>> - introduced this new patch for v51.0 bump. >>> >>> Why did you do this in two separate patches, instead of a single >>> patch that bumps to v51.0? >> >> Well, the v50.0 patch was waiting in patchwork for quite some time. It >> is still valid as-is. > > You anyway marked that one as Superseded, so it's not really relevant > that it was already on patchwork. > >> I just wrote the v51.0 on top of it and sent both as a remainder that >> v50.0 was still there. >> >> Do you prefer I send a squashed version of those in a v3? > > Yes! Well, it's not super important now because we can also easily do > that while applying, but it's less work for us if you do it :-) > > It's just that because it was in two separate patches, I thought there > was a reason for it (e.g. that the v50.0 bump was a security bump and > should be applied to 2024.02.x as well). I sent a v3: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/20240410193712.31108-1-ju.o@free.fr/ > > Regards, > Arnout Best regards, Julien.
diff --git a/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.hash b/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.hash index 27fe7e208d8..f8b01e882dc 100644 --- a/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.hash +++ b/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.hash @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ # Locally calculated -sha256 ecb866caaec7ce13f40074c769860f9c36c3a37a70913c5218217e3293d7cb11 rdma-core-50.0.tar.gz +sha256 a4065b0454249839dc75b61c6ee428e917d9cddf964ff7a33d479f00d1264ba0 rdma-core-51.0.tar.gz sha256 99e0df1d009a21d0dfb031600c550fd8f4efc0c6b2a4ef8b34a995aa6f79c9f4 COPYING.BSD_MIT sha256 8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643 COPYING.GPL2 sha256 c46a557f25b8ef9bec76526c4e593fc13e6cba27e7ba30d73b6497a689cf06f6 COPYING.md diff --git a/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.mk b/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.mk index 7818b396a46..834d9ea3efe 100644 --- a/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.mk +++ b/package/rdma-core/rdma-core.mk @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ # ################################################################################ -RDMA_CORE_VERSION = 50.0 +RDMA_CORE_VERSION = 51.0 RDMA_CORE_SITE = $(call github,linux-rdma,rdma-core,v$(RDMA_CORE_VERSION)) RDMA_CORE_LICENSE = GPL-2.0 or BSD-2-Clause RDMA_CORE_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING.GPL2 COPYING.BSD_MIT COPYING.md
For change log, see: https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/releases/tag/v51.0 Signed-off-by: Julien Olivain <ju.o@free.fr> --- Changes v1 -> v2: - introduced this new patch for v51.0 bump. --- package/rdma-core/rdma-core.hash | 2 +- package/rdma-core/rdma-core.mk | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)