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

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 765 bytes --]

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

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

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

[Michael Ellerman]

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> 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

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1122 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Tue, 19 May 2020 17:23:16 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> 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

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

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

[Paul E. McKenney]

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 <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> 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

[Thomas Gleixner]

"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> 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 <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> 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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 638 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Tue, 19 May 2020 17:23:16 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> 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

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

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

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..000000000000
--- 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