On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 08:27:51AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 11:33:27AM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote: > > > > > and Philipp can use the `RcuKBox` in this patchset. We also need to > > > > > impl > > > > > InPlaceInit for RcuBox, but that can be added later. > > > > > > > > So shall we merge my series with Alice's patch, and later we add your > > > > patch and other features, or would you prefer to have the additional > > > > boxes from your patch from the get-go? > > > > > > > > > > I would like to have it from the get-go mainly because of RcuBox vs > > > RcuKBox naming. Thank you! > > > > Fine by me. Just process-wise: how should we do it? > > > > I could include your patch on top of Alice's. Would be a bit more > > consistent regarding the git-workflow if we'd squash the two patches, > > but then you two would have to agree on authorship. > > > > Keeping it as a separate patch is fine by me. >
So is squashing ;-) Whichever is easy for you. Regards, Boqun > Regards, > Boqun > > > All is fine by me, but I wanted to ask instead of just do A or B. > > > > > [...]
