Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the powerpc tree
Hi all,
On Tue, 19 May 2020 17:23:16 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 116ac378bb3f ("powerpc/64s: machine check interrupt update NMI accounting")
>
> from the powerpc tree and commit:
>
> 187416eeb388 ("hardirq/nmi: Allow nested nmi_enter()")
>
> from the rcu tree.
This is now a conflict between commit
69ea03b56ed2 ("hardirq/nmi: Allow nested nmi_enter()")
From Linus tree and the above powerpc tree commit.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
pgpMlwY4q2EXF.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the powerpc tree
"Paul E. McKenney" writes:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 02:51:24PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Tue, 19 May 2020 17:23:16 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
>> >
>> > arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
>> >
>> > between commit:
>> >
>> > 116ac378bb3f ("powerpc/64s: machine check interrupt update NMI
>> > accounting")
>> >
>> > from the powerpc tree and commit:
>> >
>> > 187416eeb388 ("hardirq/nmi: Allow nested nmi_enter()")
>> >
>> > from the rcu tree.
>> >
>> > I fixed it up (I used the powerpc tree version for now) and can carry the
>> > fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned,
>> > but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream
>> > maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want
>> > to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to
>> > minimise any particularly complex conflicts.
>>
>> This is now a conflict between the powerpc commit and commit
>>
>> 69ea03b56ed2 ("hardirq/nmi: Allow nested nmi_enter()")
>>
>> from the tip tree. I assume that the rcu and tip trees are sharing
>> some patches (but not commits) :-(
>
> We are sharing commits, and in fact 187416eeb388 in the rcu tree came
> from the tip tree. My guess is version skew, and that I probably have
> another rebase coming up.
>
> Why is this happening? There are sets of conflicting commits in different
> efforts, and we are trying to resolve them. But we are getting feedback
> on some of those commits, which is probably what is causing the skew.
Correct. We had to rebase that. I don't think we do it again. The
changes I just sent out are carefully crafted to avoid that.
Thanks,
tglx
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the powerpc tree
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 02:51:24PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Tue, 19 May 2020 17:23:16 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 116ac378bb3f ("powerpc/64s: machine check interrupt update NMI
> > accounting")
> >
> > from the powerpc tree and commit:
> >
> > 187416eeb388 ("hardirq/nmi: Allow nested nmi_enter()")
> >
> > from the rcu tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I used the powerpc tree version for now) and can carry the
> > fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned,
> > but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream
> > maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want
> > to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to
> > minimise any particularly complex conflicts.
>
> This is now a conflict between the powerpc commit and commit
>
> 69ea03b56ed2 ("hardirq/nmi: Allow nested nmi_enter()")
>
> from the tip tree. I assume that the rcu and tip trees are sharing
> some patches (but not commits) :-(
We are sharing commits, and in fact 187416eeb388 in the rcu tree came
from the tip tree. My guess is version skew, and that I probably have
another rebase coming up.
Why is this happening? There are sets of conflicting commits in different
efforts, and we are trying to resolve them. But we are getting feedback
on some of those commits, which is probably what is causing the skew.
Thanx, Paul
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the powerpc tree
Hi all,
On Tue, 19 May 2020 17:23:16 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 116ac378bb3f ("powerpc/64s: machine check interrupt update NMI accounting")
>
> from the powerpc tree and commit:
>
> 187416eeb388 ("hardirq/nmi: Allow nested nmi_enter()")
>
> from the rcu tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I used the powerpc tree version for now) and can carry the
> fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned,
> but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream
> maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want
> to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to
> minimise any particularly complex conflicts.
This is now a conflict between the powerpc commit and commit
69ea03b56ed2 ("hardirq/nmi: Allow nested nmi_enter()")
from the tip tree. I assume that the rcu and tip trees are sharing
some patches (but not commits) :-(
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
pgpqCKNtba24A.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the powerpc tree
Stephen Rothwell writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 116ac378bb3f ("powerpc/64s: machine check interrupt update NMI accounting")
>
> from the powerpc tree and commit:
>
> 187416eeb388 ("hardirq/nmi: Allow nested nmi_enter()")
>
> from the rcu tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I used the powerpc tree version for now) and can carry the
> fix as necessary.
OK, I guess that works for now, we'll have to clean it up later once
both trees are merged upstream.
I created an issue to track it:
https://github.com/linuxppc/issues/issues/298
cheers
linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the powerpc tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
between commit:
116ac378bb3f ("powerpc/64s: machine check interrupt update NMI accounting")
from the powerpc tree and commit:
187416eeb388 ("hardirq/nmi: Allow nested nmi_enter()")
from the rcu tree.
I fixed it up (I used the powerpc tree version for now) and can carry the
fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned,
but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream
maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want
to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to
minimise any particularly complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
pgpN9r4E3myL3.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the powerpc tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
arch/powerpc/Kconfig
between commit:
d6c569b99558 ("powerpc/64: Move HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING from pseries to common
Kconfig")
from the powerpc tree and commit:
c7327406b3c3 ("rcu: Make arch select smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() strength")
from the rcu tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc arch/powerpc/Kconfig
index a47e2b22df67,9fecd004fee8..
--- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
@@@ -164,10 -164,11 +164,11 @@@ config PP
select ARCH_HAS_SCALED_CPUTIME if VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_NATIVE
select HAVE_ARCH_HARDENED_USERCOPY
select HAVE_KERNEL_GZIP
- select HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
+ select HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING if PPC64
+ select ARCH_WEAK_RELEASE_ACQUIRE
config GENERIC_CSUM
- def_bool CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN
+ def_bool n
config EARLY_PRINTK
bool
linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the powerpc tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
arch/powerpc/Kconfig
between commit:
d6c569b99558 ("powerpc/64: Move HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING from pseries to common
Kconfig")
from the powerpc tree and commit:
c7327406b3c3 ("rcu: Make arch select smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() strength")
from the rcu tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc arch/powerpc/Kconfig
index a47e2b22df67,9fecd004fee8..
--- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
@@@ -164,10 -164,11 +164,11 @@@ config PP
select ARCH_HAS_SCALED_CPUTIME if VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_NATIVE
select HAVE_ARCH_HARDENED_USERCOPY
select HAVE_KERNEL_GZIP
- select HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
+ select HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING if PPC64
+ select ARCH_WEAK_RELEASE_ACQUIRE
config GENERIC_CSUM
- def_bool CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN
+ def_bool n
config EARLY_PRINTK
bool
