From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the tip tree Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:25:00 +0200 Message-ID: <20151231121547-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: <20151231202347.3090c74b@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47423 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751250AbbLaKZF (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Dec 2015 05:25:05 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151231202347.3090c74b@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 08:23:47PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Today's linux-next merge of the vhost tree got conflicts in: > > arch/ia64/include/asm/barrier.h > arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > arch/s390/include/asm/barrier.h > include/asm-generic/barrier.h > > between commit: > > d5a73cadf3fd ("lcoking/barriers, arch: Use smp barriers in smp_store_release()") > > from the tip tree and commit: > > 2683de3a1732 ("ia64: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h") > d78113bef3e0 ("powerpc: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h") > 25bc870c914b ("s390: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h") > 24888a057e97 ("asm-generic: add __smp_XXX wrappers") > > from the vhost tree. Thanks for letting me know. I should probably cherry-pick d5a73cadf3fd - this will make it appear twice in git history, but seems cleaner than rebasing all of vhost on top of tip. Is everyone fine with this? Alternatively, I could submit the virt barriers + virtio patches for inclusion in tip. > I fixed it up (in each case taking the vhost tree version) and can > carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). > > However, given the ongoing review and discussion, I do wonder if these > vhost tree commits should be in linux-next yet. So far I got comments from David Miller about the API naming, and I'd like to get more feedback - at least from Peter Zijlstra who gave me the idea. Otherwise this seems rather like a safe bet, and this kind of integration issue seems like exactly the kind of thing linux-next helps figure out. > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au