From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9FF3C43142 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 21:24:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D179248FE for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 21:24:23 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5D179248FE Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754547AbeFVVYV (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:24:21 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:56896 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754134AbeFVVYT (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:24:19 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w5MLNlG0073314 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:24:19 -0400 Received: from e14.ny.us.ibm.com (e14.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.204]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2js4ef9h9p-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:24:19 -0400 Received: from localhost by e14.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:24:18 -0400 Received: from b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.28) by e14.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.201) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:24:14 -0400 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w5MLODKu14156082 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 Jun 2018 21:24:13 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E257B2064; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:24:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D66B205F; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:24:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.159]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:24:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EA02516C3BD3; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 14:26:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 14:26:15 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: stern@rowland.harvard.edu, andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com, will.deacon@arm.com, peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr, akiyks@gmail.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dave@stgolabs.net Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Proposed changes to -rcu workflow Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18062221-0052-0000-0000-00000302D9BA X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009242; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000265; SDB=6.01050844; UDB=6.00538571; IPR=6.00829813; MB=3.00021811; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-06-22 21:24:17 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18062221-0053-0000-0000-00005D1B6ED1 Message-Id: <20180622212615.GA9735@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-06-22_03:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1806210000 definitions=main-1806220236 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello! I am proposing changes to how I set up my -rcu tree: The -rcu tree also takes LKMM patches, and I have been handling these completely separately, with one branch for RCU and another for LKMM. But this can be a bit inconvenient, and more important, can delay my response to patches to (say) LKMM if I am doing (say) extended in-tree RCU testing. So it is time to try something a bit different. My current thought is continue to have separate LKMM and RCU branches (or more often, sets of branches) containing the commits to be offered up to the next merge window. The -rcu branch lkmm would flag the LKMM branch (or, more often, merge commit) and a new -rcu branch rcu would flag the RCU branch (or, again more often, merge commit). Then the lkmm and rcu merge commits would be merged, with new commits on top. These new commits would be intermixed RCU and LKMM commits. The tip of the -rcu development effort (both LKMM and RCU) would be flagged with a new dev branch, with the old rcu/dev branch being retired. The rcu/next branch will continue to mark the commit to be pulled into the -next tree, and will point to the merge of the rcu and lkmm branches during the merge window. I will create the next-merge-window branches sometime around -rc1 or -rc2, as I have in the past. I will send RFC patches to LKML shortly thereafter. I will send a pull request for the rcu branch around -rc5, and will send final patches from the lkmm branch at about that same time. Thoughts? Thanx, Paul