linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the printk tree

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the printk tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 775 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:

  kernel/rcu/update.c

between commit:

  64e838679e14 ("rcu: Make SRCU mandatory")

from the printk tree and commit:

  0cd7e350abc4 ("rcu: Make SRCU mandatory")

from the rcu tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter - it kept the WARN_ON_ONCE) 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.

Maybe you could share a (non rebasing) topic branch?

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the printk tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 10:55:04AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   kernel/rcu/update.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   64e838679e14 ("rcu: Make SRCU mandatory")
> 
> from the printk tree and commit:
> 
>   0cd7e350abc4 ("rcu: Make SRCU mandatory")
> 
> from the rcu tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter - it kept the WARN_ON_ONCE) 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.
> 
> Maybe you could share a (non rebasing) topic branch?

Please accept my apologies for the hassle!

We are sharing a topic branch, but it recently changed and was therefore
rebased.  You saw -rcu providing the updated version to -next, but what
with timezones and all, printk() is still providing the old one.

With a little luck, this will straighten itself out soon.

							Thanx, Paul

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the printk tree

[Petr Mladek]

On Wed 2022-11-30 15:59:59, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 10:55:04AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   kernel/rcu/update.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   64e838679e14 ("rcu: Make SRCU mandatory")
> > 
> > from the printk tree and commit:
> > 
> >   0cd7e350abc4 ("rcu: Make SRCU mandatory")
> > 
> > from the rcu tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (I just used the latter - it kept the WARN_ON_ONCE) 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.
> > 
> > Maybe you could share a (non rebasing) topic branch?
> 
> Please accept my apologies for the hassle!
> 
> We are sharing a topic branch, but it recently changed and was therefore
> rebased.  You saw -rcu providing the updated version to -next, but what
> with timezones and all, printk() is still providing the old one.

I have rebased the printk tree on top of the updated commit
0cd7e350abc4 ("rcu: Make SRCU mandatory").

All should be fine now.

It is great the linux-next exists.

Best Regards,
Petr