From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755337AbbF0QVX (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:21:23 -0400 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:33560 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753281AbbF0QVO (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:21:14 -0400 X-Helo: d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com X-MailFrom: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:21:09 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Linus Torvalds , Tejun Heo , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Lai Jiangshan , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] workqueue changes for v4.2-rc1 Message-ID: <20150627162056.GD3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20150626153552.GF15805@mtj.duckdns.org> <20150626160152.GH15805@mtj.duckdns.org> <20150627080928.GA4783@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150627080928.GA4783@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15062716-0005-0000-0000-00001197009C Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 10:09:28AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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'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. Yes, it ended up in the batch destined for v4.3. If it would make things easier, I could easily introduce the new API in v4.3, along with the changes visible at that time, and pull the old API in v4.4. That way, the conflicts appearing in v4.4 could be resolved in the originating tree, given that the new API would then be in place everywhere. Either way works for me, just let me know! Thanx, Paul