From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755179AbbF0QRN (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:17:13 -0400 Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.158]:49398 "EHLO e37.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751828AbbF0QRE (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:17:04 -0400 X-Helo: d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com X-MailFrom: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:16:58 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Linus Torvalds , Tejun Heo , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Lai Jiangshan Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] workqueue changes for v4.2-rc1 Message-ID: <20150627161630.GC3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20150626153552.GF15805@mtj.duckdns.org> <20150626160152.GH15805@mtj.duckdns.org> <20150627143556.6f97fe9e@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150627143556.6f97fe9e@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15062716-0025-0000-0000-00000FA9FFBD Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 02:35:56PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Linus, > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:18:10 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Tejun Heo 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 was wondering why I didn't see that in linux-next ... turns out I > did, but that rcu commit vanished after June 23 ... I have no idea > where it went, but it has not been in the last 3 -next releases. On that date, I moved my rcu/next branch to the commit that I sent to Ingo in my pull request for the current merge window. As I understand it, during the merge window, I am not supposed to advertise commits to -next that are not destined for that merge window. When the merge window closes, I will rebase the rest of the RCU commits to v4.2-rc1, at which point an updated version of that commit will reappear. > If it turns up again, this is the merge fix patch I was using: Thank you, I will include this. Thanx, Paul > From: Stephen Rothwell > Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:39:43 +1000 > Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: fix up for rcu_lockdep_assert() rename > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell > --- > kernel/workqueue.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c > index 837427cc5bdf..44cd4144ebcb 100644 > --- a/kernel/workqueue.c > +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c > @@ -348,10 +348,10 @@ static void workqueue_sysfs_unregister(struct workqueue_struct *wq); > "sched RCU or wq->mutex should be held") > > #define assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex_or_pool_mutex(wq) \ > - rcu_lockdep_assert(rcu_read_lock_sched_held() || \ > - lockdep_is_held(&wq->mutex) || \ > - lockdep_is_held(&wq_pool_mutex), \ > - "sched RCU, wq->mutex or wq_pool_mutex should be held") > + RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_sched_held() && \ > + !lockdep_is_held(&wq->mutex) && \ > + !lockdep_is_held(&wq_pool_mutex), \ > + "sched RCU, wq->mutex or wq_pool_mutex should be held") > > #define for_each_cpu_worker_pool(pool, cpu) \ > for ((pool) = &per_cpu(cpu_worker_pools, cpu)[0]; \ > -- > 2.1.4 > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au >