From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753842AbbF0IJr (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 27 Jun 2015 04:09:47 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]:37098 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751542AbbF0IJd (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 27 Jun 2015 04:09:33 -0400
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:09:28 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] workqueue changes for v4.2-rc1
Message-ID: <20150627080928.GA4783@gmail.com>
References: <20150626153552.GF15805@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20150626160152.GH15805@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <CA+55aFw+3JDVCz5=rM+chF4HuEKqD_ob1A5SpEbHdatnrGekOA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFw+3JDVCz5=rM+chF4HuEKqD_ob1A5SpEbHdatnrGekOA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Ooh, it isn't in mainline yet but pulling rcu tree will cause a silent
> > conflict with this pull request which leads to build failure.
> 
> I tend to try to do a full "make allmodconfig" build between all pull
> requests (although I can optimize that a bit for very targeted pull
> requests), so hopefully I'll notice and remember your note.
> 
> But just in case:
> 
> > The two colliding commits are.
> >
> >  5b95e1af8d17 ("workqueue: wq_pool_mutex protects the attrs-installation")
> >  eeacf8982637 ("rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()")
> >
> > The former adds rcu_lockdep_assert() usage and the latter renames and flips 
> > it.  It can be resolved by renaming and negating the conditions in the new 
> > usage.
> 
> it would be great if when I get the RCU pull request that introduces that 
> renaming, whoever sends it to me could remind me about it.
> 
> I'm assuming the pull request will come through Ingo. Ingo?

Yeah.

There was some discussion about how to warn about RCU failures precisely, so I 
think Paul yanked the new style RCU warnings for the time being. When/if they
come back I'll be careful and will remind you of semantic conflicts.

Thanks,

	Ingo