From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754898AbdC2I77 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 04:59:59 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f193.google.com ([209.85.128.193]:36836 "EHLO mail-wr0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754484AbdC2I7z (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 04:59:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:59:45 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Juergen Gross Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Stefano Stabellini , Boris Ostrovsky , 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 Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen-tip tree with the tip tree Message-ID: <20170329085945.GA11382@gmail.com> References: <20170329143528.50c0f325@canb.auug.org.au> <906e3014-881c-b1c7-4943-e0ed9845aab2@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <906e3014-881c-b1c7-4943-e0ed9845aab2@suse.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * 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. Thanks, Ingo