linux-next: manual merge of the signal tree with the arm-current tree

linux-next: manual merge of the signal tree with the arm-current tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 732 bytes --]

Hi Al,

Today's linux-next merge of the signal tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/kernel/signal.c between commit f73e2ca64281 ("ARM: 7443/1:
Revert "new way of handling ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK"") from the arm-current
tree and commits 9c802c169f96 ("arm: deal with handlerless restarts
without leaving the kernel") and 76c3f4da3ee4 ("arm: get rid of
TIF_SYSCALL_RESTARTSYS") from the signal tree.

I have no idea how to cope with this.  So I have effectively reverted
commit f73e2ca64281 ("ARM: 7443/1: Revert "new way of handling
ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK"") for today (though parts of that commit are also
implemented by the above signal tree commits).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the signal tree with the arm-current tree

[Russell King]

On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 05:35:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Al,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the signal tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/kernel/signal.c between commit f73e2ca64281 ("ARM: 7443/1:
> Revert "new way of handling ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK"") from the arm-current
> tree and commits 9c802c169f96 ("arm: deal with handlerless restarts
> without leaving the kernel") and 76c3f4da3ee4 ("arm: get rid of
> TIF_SYSCALL_RESTARTSYS") from the signal tree.
> 
> I have no idea how to cope with this.  So I have effectively reverted
> commit f73e2ca64281 ("ARM: 7443/1: Revert "new way of handling
> ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK"") for today (though parts of that commit are also
> implemented by the above signal tree commits).

Currently, bugs have been found with the signal handling updates which
happened during the last merge window.

Will has concerns with Al's proposed fixes for the signal handling.
Unfortunately, Al isn't responding to attempts to discuss this (for
whatever reason), and as we're now at -rc5, we believe Al's patches are
now too complex to go into this stage of -rc.

We have had to find a way forward on this - which means reverting some
of the commits that went in during the previous merge window.

So, your revert to "fix" this isn't a good idea, because it isn't what
will be going to Linus this weekend.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the signal tree with the arm-current tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1149 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 08:52:04 +0100 Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Currently, bugs have been found with the signal handling updates which
> happened during the last merge window.
> 
> Will has concerns with Al's proposed fixes for the signal handling.
> Unfortunately, Al isn't responding to attempts to discuss this (for
> whatever reason), and as we're now at -rc5, we believe Al's patches are
> now too complex to go into this stage of -rc.
> 
> We have had to find a way forward on this - which means reverting some
> of the commits that went in during the previous merge window.
> 
> So, your revert to "fix" this isn't a good idea, because it isn't what
> will be going to Linus this weekend.

OK, so for today, I have reverted these commits from Al's signal tree:

c1eafa6fc84a	"arm: pull all work_pending logics into C function"
9c802c169f96	"arm: deal with handlerless restarts without leaving the kernel"
76c3f4da3ee4	"arm: get rid of TIF_SYSCALL_RESTARTSYS"

(I was not sure if I needed to revert the first of these.)
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the signal tree with the arm-current tree

[Al Viro]

On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 08:52:04AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 05:35:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Al,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the signal tree got a conflict in
> > arch/arm/kernel/signal.c between commit f73e2ca64281 ("ARM: 7443/1:
> > Revert "new way of handling ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK"") from the arm-current
> > tree and commits 9c802c169f96 ("arm: deal with handlerless restarts
> > without leaving the kernel") and 76c3f4da3ee4 ("arm: get rid of
> > TIF_SYSCALL_RESTARTSYS") from the signal tree.
> > 
> > I have no idea how to cope with this.  So I have effectively reverted
> > commit f73e2ca64281 ("ARM: 7443/1: Revert "new way of handling
> > ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK"") for today (though parts of that commit are also
> > implemented by the above signal tree commits).
> 
> Currently, bugs have been found with the signal handling updates which
> happened during the last merge window.
> 
> Will has concerns with Al's proposed fixes for the signal handling.

Could you please resend whatever concerns those had been my way?
The last I've seen from Will had been about the stuff in mainline,
not in -next; I might have missed something quite easily, though -
net.access had been really lousy lately and piles in l-k mbox... ouch.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the signal tree with the arm-current tree

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Al,

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 08:52:04AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
>> Will has concerns with Al's proposed fixes for the signal handling.
>
> Could you please resend whatever concerns those had been my way?
> The last I've seen from Will had been about the stuff in mainline,
> not in -next; I might have missed something quite easily, though -
> net.access had been really lousy lately and piles in l-k mbox... ouch.

Speaking about -next, there's still this fix for an avr32 regression:

http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-next/msg20972.html

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the signal tree with the arm-current tree

[Al Viro]

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 01:47:59PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Al,
> 
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 08:52:04AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> >> Will has concerns with Al's proposed fixes for the signal handling.
> >
> > Could you please resend whatever concerns those had been my way?
> > The last I've seen from Will had been about the stuff in mainline,
> > not in -next; I might have missed something quite easily, though -
> > net.access had been really lousy lately and piles in l-k mbox... ouch.
> 
> Speaking about -next, there's still this fix for an avr32 regression:

Yeah, grabbed it.  Will be in the next rebase (hopefully in a few hours).

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the signal tree with the arm-current tree

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Al,

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 01:47:59PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 08:52:04AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
>> >> Will has concerns with Al's proposed fixes for the signal handling.
>> >
>> > Could you please resend whatever concerns those had been my way?
>> > The last I've seen from Will had been about the stuff in mainline,
>> > not in -next; I might have missed something quite easily, though -
>> > net.access had been really lousy lately and piles in l-k mbox... ouch.
>>
>> Speaking about -next, there's still this fix for an avr32 regression:
>
> Yeah, grabbed it.  Will be in the next rebase (hopefully in a few hours).

Still not there, though.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds