From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752873AbbF2Gwe (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2015 02:52:34 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]:36627 "EHLO mail-wg0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752725AbbF2Gw0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2015 02:52:26 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 08:52:20 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Paul E. McKenney" 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: <20150629065220.GA17509@gmail.com> References: <20150626153552.GF15805@mtj.duckdns.org> <20150626160152.GH15805@mtj.duckdns.org> <20150627080928.GA4783@gmail.com> <20150627162056.GD3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150627162056.GD3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Paul E. McKenney wrote: > 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! I think having it all in v4.3 is perfectly fine! Thanks, Ingo