> > Hi Huang Jing, > > > > Thanks for investigating and fixing this! A few notes, inline, > > below. > > > > They are all formal and trivial so I can fix up all of them on > > merge if you agree (but you can also choose to re-send as v2 with > > those fixed, let me know, in case). > > > > I'm pointing those out especially for the future, should you > > happen to contribute again to this project or projects following a > > similar workflow. Thanks! > > > From 25831e518c9227a31b75f2c1eb2e620fd4c5d049 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > > We follow essentially the same contribution process as the Linux > > kernel, see also CONTRIBUTING.md and: > > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/submitting-patches.html > > > > ...so we don't send them patches as attachments, they're simply in > > the email body, just like git send-email sends them. > > > > > From: RadioNoiseE > > > Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2026 19:58:45 +0800 > > > Subject: [PATCH] isolation: Include linux_dep.h for close_range() > > > > > > Now that close_open_files() has been moved, linux_dep.h can be safely > > > > Stated like this, it looks like a more detailed description of the > > patch, compared to the title. > > > > It's something you're adding to it instead. To avoid confusion > > about what the patch does (most importantly, what's in the title), > > I'd suggest to phrase it like: > > > > ...and now that close_open_files() ... > > > > > removed from util.c. > > > > Here we need a couple of tags to provide some context (which might > > be important when looking at this later), that is: > > > > Link: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/46644 > > Fixes: 0a510066e916 ("isolation: Move close_open_files() to isolate_fds()") > > > > and, while at it, it's a good practice to Cc: the author of the > > change that's being fixed up (I just did). > > I second the minor procedural nits, but the patch looks good to me > too, so, > > Reviewed-by: David Gibson Will send the fixed patch in the following mail.