From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758997Ab2IFQZ2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:25:28 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:45846 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758451Ab2IFQZ1 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:25:27 -0400 Message-ID: <1346948545.18408.37.camel@twins> Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/23] rcu: Prevent initialization-time quiescent-state race From: Peter Zijlstra To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com 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 Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 18:22:25 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20120906161815.GE2448@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> <20120906161815.GE2448@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 09:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > 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. I didn't mind the smaller steps, but patches like 6 which move newly introduced code around are weird. As are patches fixing bugs introduced in previous patches (of the same series).