Re: [GIT PULL] workqueue changes for v4.2-rc1

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 08:52:20AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 10:09:28AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * 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.
> > 
> > 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!

Will do!

							Thanx, Paul