From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Juergen Gross Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen-tip tree with the tip tree Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:28:13 +0200 Message-ID: <26fb88f9-dd20-c56b-e87d-6d454b4f7c71@suse.com> References: <20170329143528.50c0f325@canb.auug.org.au> <906e3014-881c-b1c7-4943-e0ed9845aab2@suse.com> <20170329085945.GA11382@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:52649 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753355AbdC2J2X (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 05:28:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170329085945.GA11382@gmail.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar , Boris Ostrovsky Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Stefano Stabellini , Xen Devel , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vitaly Kuznetsov , Andy Lutomirski , Mathias Krause , Thomas Garnier On 29/03/17 10:59, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Juergen Gross wrote: > >> On 29/03/17 05:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in: >>> >>> arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c >>> >>> between commits: >>> >>> 6415813bae75 ("x86/cpu: Drop wp_works_ok member of struct cpuinfo_x86") >>> 69218e47994d ("x86: Remap GDT tables in the fixmap section") >>> b23adb7d3f7d ("x86/xen/gdt: Use X86_FEATURE_XENPV instead of globals for the GDT fixup") >>> >>> from the tip tree and commits: >>> >>> 75cd32d6093e ("x86/xen: split off enlighten_pv.c") >>> >>> from the xen-tip tree. >>> >>> I dropped the xen-tip tree for today (see other conflict reports), >>> please get together and sort these out, thanks. >>> >> >> Hmm, seems to be a rather bad timing for the series of Vitaly. >> >> What is the best way to resolve those conflicts? A rebase of Vitaly's >> patches seems to be required in any case. >> >> Should I rebase the Xen tree on current tip? This seems to be rather >> easy, but I think this will work only if I can be sure the current tip >> tree contents will all be merged by Linus before the Xen tree. > > That's certainly very likely, -tip trees all go in very early in the merge window. > >> I could try to cherry pick the patches from tip where Vitaly's patches >> have conflicts with, but I think this could lead to a lot of patches >> to take. > > Nor is it desirable as a workflow. > > I'd suggest the following: in about a week I can guarantee a working tip:x86/mm > base with most of the 5-level paging patches applied that you could base Xen > patches on. > > Unfortunately, right now there's at least one regression with those changes that > needs to be properly fixed before it's a suitable base tree. The fix already > exists, it just needs to be tested and the whole tree needs to cook for a few days > to be dependable for Xen as a base. > >> Or we could delay Vitaly's series until tip has been merged, but this >> will either delay some other Xen patches depending on (or conflicting >> with) Vitaly's patches or would make the rebase for Vitaly more >> difficult. > > So my suggestion would be: could you delay 75cd32d6093e for a week, and then merge > it on top of a pulled in tip:x86/mm? I'll send that tree to Linus on the first day > of the merge window so there shouldn't be any ordering problems. Okay, that's rather easy to do. Boris, I renamed the current Xen for-linus-4.12 branch for easy development of other Xen patches to for-linus-4.12-pre. I'll create another branch for-linus-4.12 based on the tip tree next week which will be subject to the pull request for Linus. As soon as for-linus-4.12 is ready the for-linus-4.12-pre branch shouldn't be used any longer. Juergen