From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDDF6C6FA83 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 22:18:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229562AbiILWSq (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2022 18:18:46 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37848 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230215AbiILWSU (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2022 18:18:20 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x529.google.com (mail-pg1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::529]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B24A152834; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x529.google.com with SMTP id q9so420466pgq.8; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=HMsg24DgWn9pseOs15nZNZF3gasImsq/1+/HBiMz7zM=; b=XeejMlKnn3k/2+rKlg10fHdnnRTFqpQ2qV/ohuVnxt0athlfrrjaf/erEApEmGsURA tuwdkBLoruW/fmik1lzCqKnCibQ8uTe1aX86X4z//2Rc83RuYX4aN3bSaVaTm0YDbnYY 61rlLNCH/b6xnXgXyev+idVVGAr1NSo/qgYYqcrTqgF7PKKHylECsXzFxq0EPV9psGDz iqluN5WfpnJ9ItbrJqx71wrluVtXNDGPYQhomfgbvA2xVFe3Y1lB2Rp5CDZgEzzWqBIe jm0wc2YvTPLhDXnq6W1LR8Q+r0aFo+tZL6m6pRYLivZG02n6X9E2/tH5argszecAxjec 3Lvw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date; bh=HMsg24DgWn9pseOs15nZNZF3gasImsq/1+/HBiMz7zM=; b=VYoXNVclaiKh0VL/SQTj7bYPPf9vm2yZAGChIgOVNHw1JefO7Y2gE4gQvWxDN/hzp5 0iJyrzl2dVePxIB2Zd5bJODJ4U7uUE2rscfgYm8EtqZK+EteXusABJQIPdJIqAImlWXV Ibr5eX2Oms5xdLafbb0iSAXolj7p/OhO2xdQBEF8pyzE3M5uzFlytDUcaJ2Rfbhrxu6h 1+DzlDTmm/sBMssbNnBtMdVRjk/Y4bkAvIsTOBk+DHejXDYMZ0qhWc/NK0tPEoWDSRLQ +QYXHP+qZf2n8MRuC4WtZeeTd7mDF+cUoA26QrSurCCx5Sy3k8UXSs5vKMFd3nqqxAKp cJSg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0vVh2nB4I7AXQNsNtnlsXaVON07C6k6ELo6Om5YXH13g1dXmpz LGU0T0MkD4gCBB5fee/Mbiw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR62BngsLBHv6tGuYOzt7emkERNocqceIsWr3JBR9rcG2Fakapt2kwpnC44iHIcT3qGAagiJ7g== X-Received: by 2002:a62:3384:0:b0:538:58ab:8fee with SMTP id z126-20020a623384000000b0053858ab8feemr24409123pfz.7.1663020994100; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (2603-800c-1a02-1bae-a7fa-157f-969a-4cde.res6.spectrum.com. [2603:800c:1a02:1bae:a7fa:157f:969a:4cde]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bd7-20020a656e07000000b0041c35462316sm6037455pgb.26.2022.09.12.15.16.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:16:33 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Tejun Heo Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 12:16:32 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Chengming Zhou , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the cgroup tree Message-ID: References: <20220912161812.072aaa3b@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 08:44:48AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 09:38:58AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 04:18:12PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > After merging the cgroup tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 > > > allmodconfig) failed like this: > > > > Hmm,. TJ should I base sched/psi on top of drivers-core-next and your > > cgroup tree? > > Yeah, this is kinda nasty. Lemme just pull drivers-core-next into > cgorup/for-6.1 so that folks don't have to worry about this and you can just > pull that one. I initially thought that driver-core-next was conflicting with cgroup/for-6.1 but this is simpler. It's a straight forward conflict between the PSI patchset in the tip tree and changes in cgroup/for-6.1 which are cleaning up some cftype handling, and the patch that Stephen applied is correct. So, we can do one of the following two: 1. Leave it as-is. Stephen's patch is correct and we can just let Linus know how to resolve it on the pull requests. 2. Pull cgroup/for-6.1 into the tip tree and preemptively resolve the conflict there. I'm leaning towards #1 but #2 is fine too. Peter, what do you wanna do? Thanks. -- tejun