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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A33EEC433F5 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:41:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239032AbiDFRne (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:43:34 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48868 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239952AbiDFRm6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:42:58 -0400 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0995B323884; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 09:28:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7ABAB824CD; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 16:28:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D9AFC385A3; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 16:28:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1649262501; bh=RO6oFh4/G2Dex/wyHDpkixhfO/24KmgeZmhyqDepGCU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=n85auwxTRUdd1nnTgXWAIcEu2FZwejkbMRK610T7d7+18gL80AOV7kUGrR7XQDhBM +AEVH+sOg8R8zIi5VGn8OFqErztJnyMlyBHyu0iq0EuNWZ4wjD2+BmrYihhX5SOwLU Ie6i3zPtGlPhrqsHGqAJ5PeB11zpcDuH6a34i65UhxF4kLAs5TCxbtT6QMG3fw8Qi4 mNi4KS4fbsbRAhktTS1kYhO/kbTUcymPEBf9RRrGtSaklPQ2WrCb1fP0lOHSa4D22W 2SkLWD4ULhOf0xPTBWEnABGhJoKwmSzfhmg+ZN6U+iAk+AggUJK+iPv0QvqcLU/+Iu lS6JU5vWQDvUA== Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 110485C0B85; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 09:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 09:28:21 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Frederic Weisbecker , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List , Valentin Schneider Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree Message-ID: <20220406162821.GM4285@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org References: <20220406124503.25e8ed68@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220406124503.25e8ed68@canb.auug.org.au> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 12:45:03PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got conflicts in: > > kernel/sched/core.c > include/linux/sched.h > > between commit: > > cfe43f478b79 ("preempt/dynamic: Introduce preemption model accessors") > > from the tip tree and commit: > > 42e3e3c6a774 ("EXP preempt/dynamic: Introduce preempt mode accessors") > > from the rcu tree. > > Well, this is just a pain. Paul, please don't put expierimental things > in you linuc-nect included branch. I have dropped the rcu tree today. Gah! Please accept my apologies for the hassle! In the short term, I have reset rcu/next to the commit preceding 42e3e3c6a774 ("EXP preempt/dynamic: Introduce preempt mode accessors"). This could cause some trouble for a few corner-case -next users, but... Longer term, this is excellent news, because it means that I can drop that commit from my tree entirely and rebase my stack on top of the version of that same commit that is just now in -tip. > The rules I use for the linux-next tree are: > > "You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have > been: > * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's > Signed-off-by, > * posted to the relevant mailing list, > * reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree), > * successfully unit tested, and > * destined for the current or next Linux merge window. > > Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him > to fetch). It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary." Understood, and thank you. The next time that I am forced to choose between propagating a bug into -next on the one hand and precisely following the above rules on the other, I will consult with you beforehand. Please accept my apologies for failing to have done so this time. Thanx, Paul