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 tip tree Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:13:41 -0700 Message-ID: <20170731161341.GG3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20170731135029.479025ea@canb.auug.org.au> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170731135029.479025ea@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andy Lutomirski , Mathieu Desnoyers List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 01:50:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: > > arch/x86/mm/tlb.c > > between commit: > > 94b1b03b519b ("x86/mm: Rework lazy TLB mode and TLB freshness tracking") > > from the tip tree and commit: > > d7713e8f8b23 ("membarrier: Expedited private command") > > from the rcu tree. > > I fixed it up (the former removed the comment and the load_cr3(), so I > just dropped the commend change in the latter) and can carry the fix as > necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any > non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer > when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider > cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any > particularly complex conflicts. Thank you, Stephen! Mathieu, Peter, our commit log reads as if removal of load_cr3() would simply result in relying on the ordering provided by the atomic ops in switch_mm() for mm_cpumask(), so that only the commit log and the comment need changing. Please let me know if I am missing something here. Thanx, Paul