From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758892Ab2IFQSw (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:18:52 -0400 Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:59510 "EHLO e9.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758783Ab2IFQSu (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:18:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:18:16 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Josh Triplett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, sbw@mit.edu, patches@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/23] rcu: Prevent initialization-time quiescent-state race Message-ID: <20120906161815.GE2448@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20120830181811.GA29154@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1346350718-30937-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1346350718-30937-16-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120903093742.GE5574@leaf> <20120905181920.GN3308@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1346941290.18408.17.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1346941290.18408.17.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12090616-7182-0000-0000-00000285A71F Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 04:21:30PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 11:19 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > I tried that, and got a surprisingly large set of conflicts. Ah, OK, > > the problem is that breaking up rcu_gp_kthread() into subfunctions > > did enough code motion to defeat straightforward rebasing. Is there > > some way to tell "git rebase" about such code motion, or would this > > need to be carried out carefully by hand? > > The alternative is doing that rebase by hand and in the process make > that code movement patch (6) obsolete by making patches (1) and (3) > introduce the code in the final form :-) > > Yay for less patches :-) Actually, my original intent was that patches 1-6 be one patch. The need to locate a nasty bug caused me to split it up. So the best approach is to squash patches 1-6 together with the related patches. Thanx, paul