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 B2F2FC43144 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:41:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DFFC260F9 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:41:56 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4DFFC260F9 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 S965134AbeFYUly (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:41:54 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:60166 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935040AbeFYUlx (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:41:53 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w5PKZZWs064834 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:41:52 -0400 Received: from e13.ny.us.ibm.com (e13.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.203]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ju7jm875u-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:41:52 -0400 Received: from localhost by e13.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:41:51 -0400 Received: from b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.24) by e13.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.200) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:41:45 -0400 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w5PKfi8n6816194 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:41:44 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B324B2067; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:41:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B58BB2066; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:41:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.159]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:41:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1689C16CA093; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:43:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:43:49 -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: Re: Proposed changes to -rcu workflow Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20180622212615.GA9735@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180622212615.GA9735@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18062520-0064-0000-0000-0000032020B6 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009254; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000266; SDB=6.01052259; UDB=6.00539423; IPR=6.00830185; MB=3.00021853; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-06-25 20:41:49 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18062520-0065-0000-0000-000039B6DDA1 Message-Id: <20180625204349.GA25508@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-06-25_09:,, 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-1806250227 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 02:26:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > 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? Hearing no objections, I have rebased as described above. The -rcu branch "dev" now includes both LKMM and RCU changes. Thanx, Paul