From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB5BC43603 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:38:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29F424676 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:38:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1576762711; bh=H5+pX1vWjUX3DlsFCPRqcN0cwwYfdIzXOu/G2222Jxs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID: From; b=xUvQ/rHZgNAxivaqluh4H+x1dFyUGeM5L5yPbPxtWa85cowaYg1XYiTPCatR7fENe u+hFEmq0bMeURfv7SRIqxQs9t9ZCYTp0rlRyy0VwXvhoQ0pkiG2KCePay0E3hrC5GO wDlAKgZS0PmumQ+OD6dskXv/BMiPO7l/zlGd/36A= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726890AbfLSNib (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:38:31 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:40284 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726801AbfLSNia (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:38:30 -0500 Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-P72.home (50-39-105-78.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net [50.39.105.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D4DFC20684; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:38:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1576762709; bh=H5+pX1vWjUX3DlsFCPRqcN0cwwYfdIzXOu/G2222Jxs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=d3MpCAgzuIJypT663vxUWNJ9cfpuBGYCw0C/S/hV2VAl6fEdHbRsPSsuoGgbScQ8+ Y+mVlH6TNbZvh1j542vjahCeRhkCqsVrvBk7nV/bBcKUlqZw5ZIP3WBL/iw0QXNDIm cHVqGSro3sY4INMLFivu9y6UtGXaNhSvbPXJyw/A= Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P72.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 978EE352277E; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 05:38:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 05:38:29 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree Message-ID: <20191219133829.GZ2889@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org References: <20191219115036.4699721c@canb.auug.org.au> <20191219012726.GY2889@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20191219013151.GA21768@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20191219084155.GU2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191219084155.GU2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 09:41:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 05:31:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 05:27:26PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:50:35AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > > > kernel/cpu.c > > > > > > > > between commit: > > > > > > > > 45178ac0cea8 ("cpu/hotplug, stop_machine: Fix stop_machine vs hotplug order") > > > > > > > > from the tip tree and commit: > > > > > > > > d62c673f4cfc ("cpu/hotplug, stop_machine: Fix stop_machine vs hotplug order") > > > > > > > > from the rcu tree. > > > > > > > > I fixed it up (I just used the tip tree version) 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. > > > > > > I will pull this one out of the set that I mark for -next. That way > > > I can test and you can avoid at least this one conflict. ;-) > > > > Heh. And the reason that it conflicts is that I fixed at least one > > spelling error... ;-) > > > > Still, the one in tip is the official one, so I will proceed as planned. > > Argh, my bad. I'd forgotten you'd already queued it, and I was holding > onto it to make sure it didn't get lost. Now we haz it twice. Better than losing the patch! ;-) Thanx, Paul