Re: linux-next: manual merge of the percpu tree with the tip tree

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:15:12AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 03:13:31PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 03:50:18PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the percpu tree got a conflict in
> > > kernel/irq_work.c between commit 76a33061b932 ("irq_work: Force raised
> > > irq work to run on irq work interrupt") from the tip tree and commit
> > > 22127e93c587 ("time: Replace __get_cpu_var uses") from the percpu tree.
> > > 
> > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> > > is required).
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> > > 
> > > diff --cc kernel/irq_work.c
> > > index 385b85aded19,345d19edcdae..000000000000
> > > --- a/kernel/irq_work.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/irq_work.c
> > > @@@ -113,12 -113,10 +113,12 @@@ bool irq_work_needs_cpu(void
> > >   {
> > >   	struct llist_head *raised, *lazy;
> > >   
> > > - 	raised = &__get_cpu_var(raised_list);
> > > - 	lazy = &__get_cpu_var(lazy_list);
> > > + 	raised = this_cpu_ptr(&raised_list);
> > > + 	lazy = this_cpu_ptr(&lazy_list);
> > 
> > Ah thanks! The conflict is compile time rather than merge time, thanks
> > for spotting it!
> > 
> > Should we notify Linus about it? That's certainly something that should
> > be applied with the percpu tree.
> 
> I'm holding back percpu/for-3.18-consistent-ops till other trees are
> merged and collecting the conflicts.  I'll list them when sending the
> pull request.

Sounds good!

Thanks.