Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1739473 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-09-26 05:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-09-26 05:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-09-26 05:10 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-09-26 05:30 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-09-26 05:50 +0200
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-26 05:10 +0200 |
| Subject | linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree |
| Message-ID | <utOpY-7kB-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi Paul,
Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
kernel/rcu/tree.c
between commit:
28585a832602 ("rcu: Allow for page faults in NMI handlers")
from Linus' tree and commit:
3e2baa988b9c ("rcu: Allow for page faults in NMI handlers")
from the rcu tree.
I fixed it up (I just used the rcu tree version) 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
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-26 05:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <utOJj-7rZ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1739473 |
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 01:00:18PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
>
> kernel/rcu/tree.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 28585a832602 ("rcu: Allow for page faults in NMI handlers")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
> 3e2baa988b9c ("rcu: Allow for page faults in NMI handlers")
>
> from the rcu tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the rcu tree version) 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.
Hello, Stephen,
This conflict will disappear tomorrow, as I have merged the commit
from Linus's tree in place of mine and have added another commit that
removes the READ_ONCE()s. Same result, but no conflict. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-26 05:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <utP2G-7zs-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1739483 |
Hi Paul, On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:26:28 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > This conflict will disappear tomorrow, as I have merged the commit > from Linus's tree in place of mine and have added another commit that > removes the READ_ONCE()s. Same result, but no conflict. ;-) Thanks, I figured something like that would happen. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web