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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 EA3B5C433E0 for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:38:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1AE820748 for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:38:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728996AbgEUUiu (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2020 16:38:50 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56594 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728899AbgEUUiu (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2020 16:38:50 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [IPv6:2a0a:51c0:0:12e:550::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F800C061A0E; Thu, 21 May 2020 13:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p5de0bf0b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([93.224.191.11] helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jbrxc-0001IS-IB; Thu, 21 May 2020 22:38:36 +0200 Received: by nanos.tec.linutronix.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F2D48100C2D; Thu, 21 May 2020 22:38:35 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: paulmck@kernel.org, Stephen Rothwell Cc: Michael Ellerman , PowerPC , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Nicholas Piggin Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the powerpc tree In-Reply-To: <20200521133543.GX2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> References: <20200519172316.3b37cbae@canb.auug.org.au> <20200521145124.48ae408b@canb.auug.org.au> <20200521133543.GX2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 22:38:35 +0200 Message-ID: <87h7w9t450.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org "Paul E. McKenney" 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 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