linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the rr tree

linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the rr tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 724 bytes --]

Hi Borislav,

Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in
include/linux/topology.h between commit
11c0109a8c24b27fd6eff8c2c0ddca598675212d
("cpumask:remove-topology_core_siblings-and-topology_thread_siblings-core")
from the rr tree and commit 86aebc88b40884510c914ad71e81c8536a15052e
("topology: introduce cpu_node information for multi-node processors")
from the edac-amd tree.

The latter adds topology_cpu_node_siblings() which is not needed (the
former makes it clear that the _cpumask versions of these should be used
instead).  I fixed it up and can carry the fix as necessary.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the rr tree

[Borislav Petkov]

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 03:41:50PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Borislav,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in
> include/linux/topology.h between commit
> 11c0109a8c24b27fd6eff8c2c0ddca598675212d
> ("cpumask:remove-topology_core_siblings-and-topology_thread_siblings-core")
> from the rr tree and commit 86aebc88b40884510c914ad71e81c8536a15052e
> ("topology: introduce cpu_node information for multi-node processors")
> from the edac-amd tree.
> 
> The latter adds topology_cpu_node_siblings() which is not needed (the
> former makes it clear that the _cpumask versions of these should be used
> instead).  I fixed it up and can carry the fix as necessary.

Hi Stephen,

thanks for fixing that. Yep, the topology patches in the edac tree are
not final yet, I've added them to the mix only because edac depends on
the node_id functionality. I'll fix them up later against the rr stuff.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the rr tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 447 bytes --]

Hi Borislav,

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:23:09 +0200 Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> thanks for fixing that. Yep, the topology patches in the edac tree are
> not final yet, I've added them to the mix only because edac depends on
> the node_id functionality. I'll fix them up later against the rr stuff.

Thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the rr tree

[Borislav Petkov]

Hi Stephen,

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 05:08:50PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > thanks for fixing that. Yep, the topology patches in the edac tree are
> > not final yet, I've added them to the mix only because edac depends on
> > the node_id functionality. I'll fix them up later against the rr stuff.

I rediffed the topology bits against
cpumask:remove-topology_core_siblings-and-topology_thread_siblings-core.
patch from Rusty's tree so we should be good to go.

Also, I'm carrying couple of patches that should go through the x86 tree
and depending on when they go in, I'll drop them from mine. Just wanted
to give you heads up here in case you start getting merge conflicts :).

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Operating | Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
  System  | Karl-Hammerschmidt-Str. 34, 85609 Dornach b. München, Germany
 Research | Geschäftsführer: Thomas M. McCoy, Giuliano Meroni
  Center  | Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis München
  (OSRC)  | Registergericht München, HRB Nr. 43632

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the rr tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 626 bytes --]

Hi Boris,

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:09:39 +0200 Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@amd.com> wrote:
>
> I rediffed the topology bits against
> cpumask:remove-topology_core_siblings-and-topology_thread_siblings-core.
> patch from Rusty's tree so we should be good to go.

Thanks.

> Also, I'm carrying couple of patches that should go through the x86 tree
> and depending on when they go in, I'll drop them from mine. Just wanted
> to give you heads up here in case you start getting merge conflicts :).

OK

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the rr tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Borislav,

Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in
arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c between commit
d39044d21e1a2d3713f1329ad22d23df5d20140b ("cpumask: use zalloc_cpumask_var
() where possible") from the rr tree and commit
a763af6587fbead6cee75ad3ae14709fa67e7dbb ("x86: provide CPU topology
information for multi-node processors") from the edac-amd tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
index 70bd79b,5428337..0000000
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
@@@ -1057,9 -1068,14 +1068,10 @@@ void __init native_smp_prepare_cpus(uns
  #endif
  	current_thread_info()->cpu = 0;  /* needed? */
  	for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
 -		alloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_sibling_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
 -		alloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_core_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
 -		alloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_node_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
 -		alloc_cpumask_var(&cpu_data(i).llc_shared_map, GFP_KERNEL);
 -		cpumask_clear(per_cpu(cpu_core_map, i));
 -		cpumask_clear(per_cpu(cpu_node_map, i));
 -		cpumask_clear(per_cpu(cpu_sibling_map, i));
 -		cpumask_clear(cpu_data(i).llc_shared_map);
 +		zalloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_sibling_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
 +		zalloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_core_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
++		zalloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_node_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
 +		zalloc_cpumask_var(&cpu_data(i).llc_shared_map, GFP_KERNEL);
  	}
  	set_cpu_sibling_map(0);
  

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the rr tree

[Borislav Petkov]

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 05:51:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Borislav,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in
> arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c between commit
> d39044d21e1a2d3713f1329ad22d23df5d20140b ("cpumask: use zalloc_cpumask_var
> () where possible") from the rr tree and commit
> a763af6587fbead6cee75ad3ae14709fa67e7dbb ("x86: provide CPU topology
> information for multi-node processors") from the edac-amd tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.

I guess this is the best solution for now. Andreas' latest patches went
out yesterday and they too contain the

alloc_cpumask_var
cpumask_clear

order. Which means, this fix will have to be applied then between the
tip and the rr trees after Ingo merges Andreas' stuff, so please hold on
to it until after the merge window.

Thanks.

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> 
> diff --cc arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> index 70bd79b,5428337..0000000
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> @@@ -1057,9 -1068,14 +1068,10 @@@ void __init native_smp_prepare_cpus(uns
>   #endif
>   	current_thread_info()->cpu = 0;  /* needed? */
>   	for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
>  -		alloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_sibling_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
>  -		alloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_core_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
>  -		alloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_node_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
>  -		alloc_cpumask_var(&cpu_data(i).llc_shared_map, GFP_KERNEL);
>  -		cpumask_clear(per_cpu(cpu_core_map, i));
>  -		cpumask_clear(per_cpu(cpu_node_map, i));
>  -		cpumask_clear(per_cpu(cpu_sibling_map, i));
>  -		cpumask_clear(cpu_data(i).llc_shared_map);
>  +		zalloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_sibling_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
>  +		zalloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_core_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
> ++		zalloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_node_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
>  +		zalloc_cpumask_var(&cpu_data(i).llc_shared_map, GFP_KERNEL);
>   	}
>   	set_cpu_sibling_map(0);
>   
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the rr tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 649 bytes --]

Hi Borislav,

Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in
drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c because commit
4de1ce0c99ff838090d3b57cab8bc6eeb303dda5
("cpumask:amd64_edac-cpumask_t-remove") from the rr tree and commit
2fd9af91b92c10e58993f9eb70300fdff32698fb ("cpumask: use modern cpumask
style in drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c") from the edac-amd tree are the same
patch but there are further changes in the edac-amd tree.  So, Rusty, I
guess you can drop that patch (unless something later in the rr tree
depends on it).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the rr tree

[Borislav Petkov]

Hi Stephen,

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 04:23:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in
> drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c because commit
> 4de1ce0c99ff838090d3b57cab8bc6eeb303dda5
> ("cpumask:amd64_edac-cpumask_t-remove") from the rr tree and commit
> 2fd9af91b92c10e58993f9eb70300fdff32698fb ("cpumask: use modern cpumask
> style in drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c") from the edac-amd tree are the same
> patch but there are further changes in the edac-amd tree.  So, Rusty, I
> guess you can drop that patch (unless something later in the rr tree
> depends on it).

yes, we agreed I should pick up this patch. Rusty?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the rr tree

[Rusty Russell]

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:36:48 pm Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 04:23:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in
> > drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c because commit
> > 4de1ce0c99ff838090d3b57cab8bc6eeb303dda5
> > ("cpumask:amd64_edac-cpumask_t-remove") from the rr tree and commit
> > 2fd9af91b92c10e58993f9eb70300fdff32698fb ("cpumask: use modern cpumask
> > style in drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c") from the edac-amd tree are the same
> > patch but there are further changes in the edac-amd tree.  So, Rusty, I
> > guess you can drop that patch (unless something later in the rr tree
> > depends on it).
> 
> yes, we agreed I should pick up this patch. Rusty?

Thanks!

Rusty.