From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the modules and tip trees Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 05:46:48 -0700 Message-ID: <20150529124648.GA5989@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20150528172507.31f6fc8c@canb.auug.org.au> <20150528170321.GH5989@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150529065604.GA23179@gmail.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.160]:60080 "EHLO e39.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755514AbbE2Mqy (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2015 08:46:54 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e39.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:46:53 -0600 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150529065604.GA23179@gmail.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Rusty Russell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 08:56:04AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:25:07PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi Paul, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in > > > include/linux/rcupdate.h between commits 0a04b0166929 ("rcu: Move > > > lockless_dereference() out of rcupdate.h") from the modules tree and > > > c1ad348b452a ("tick: Nohz: Rework next timer evaluation") from the tip > > > tree and commits 7d0ae8086b82 ("rcu: Convert ACCESS_ONCE() to > > > READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE()") and 3382adbc1bb8 ("rcu: Eliminate a few > > > CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL #ifdefs") from the rcu tree. > > > > > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action > > > is required). > > > > Thank you, Stephen! > > > > Ingo, I can send you a pull request as is or I can merge c1ad348b452a > > with v4.1-rc3, rebase my commits on top of that, and do another cycle > > through -next. If I don't hear otherwise, I will be lazy and send as is, > > so if you would prefer something different, please let me know. > > I think as-is would be better, to not create extra dependencies. I can resolve > conflicts in -tip. Very good! I expect to send the pull request tomorrow (Saturday) Pacific time. Thanx, Paul