From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [90.155.92.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49351337688; Tue, 28 Oct 2025 14:08:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761660498; cv=none; b=EQlryAI4MfjsmToR6ciJZ///SZXqOixT6wQfiH6WIHlT5PqjeAQuc5U6T9Y28WGasHkKxp9z6QSk+MkCwXM1oxS5YP6uwvcGCB4+1erI/Ep0tGzxPLdGC5eWagveDVDnkUxE/57XRa42gRj1jKGt00HHwYp6xfXaNF+a7g7lz5A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761660498; c=relaxed/simple; bh=80GVU+KEcGEzhiawu3SE2Yj1JPq4yN4YExDM54LgnIM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=n2W04JA8l0fXBXD+1qlE8A3xOlAkKf4Fn6M4+BDSgF8zbiafaWzSzJ/uFgWcVgD2fUcIVShrMOx0mT/xTrFQJbBynanA5K3yOh8Hk3ws1E+UYLaHmbH3EoQOdma/8AxeihZoW/dqt53wD5t8yvevvYfi7AA+R0Uid/LN5SiYD/s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=N0dl+8q0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="N0dl+8q0" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=egKIBcM1r3rVKidn5mxv810VXintHraWDp0dW5Ht2GM=; b=N0dl+8q0JA4fa4L4Cx2BjjcqSZ yQ8rMJW/u0dN3Wan0FmtwqEQWf9s5A0KbYjYcxwcEJSfOwBgqdwnL1PPmiysK3lbasy/if7n1jmx2 +DrQLkUbEp2h2e12xwxJOFBUT0Zeb1gbUKPIQFQSiWfXERYQZQSGWU6xTWzXhX0nda8+rDm1MpSzE jy3LJQ7qFEStjHJJXvcWrdHc2a1v5wbbZVZPRYFdu7ZN/P3FoK1KRzZOfCkq2xA94B9VY08QWPUaB lKB3yxXLFJf3uZpIBxZT4UrGdYn7XMQgq7085mhOd4G9Qj+EPP12k0s0MFU8Iz/HbKPZRDe+/QYH3 gKEhSxsA==; Received: from 77-249-17-252.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl ([77.249.17.252] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vDjV7-00000004W4V-0tv7; Tue, 28 Oct 2025 13:12:37 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 99484300220; Tue, 28 Oct 2025 15:08:07 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 15:08:07 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Tejun Heo Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "Emil Tsalapatis (Meta)" , Emil Tsalapatis , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20251028140807.GM3245006@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20251028112205.47129816@canb.auug.org.au> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 03:10:43PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 11:22:05AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > > > kernel/sched/ext.c > > > > between commit: > > > > a8ad873113d3 ("sched_ext: defer queue_balance_callback() until after ops.dispatch") > > > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > > > 4c95380701f5 ("sched/ext: Fold balance_scx() into pick_task_scx()") > > > > from the tip tree. > > > > I fixed it up (see below - but I was not sure if the > > "maybe_queue_balance_callback(rq);" is positioned correctly) and can > > carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is > > concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your > > upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may > > also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting > > tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. > > I resolved this in sched_ext/for-6.19 by pulling for-6.18-fixes but yeah the > conflict is through tip/sched/core. I think your resolution is correct and > matches sched_ext/for-6.19 (sans whitespaces). > > I don't know how tip tree resolves these conflicts but either way - leaving > it as-is until the merge window, or pulling master and resolving in tip - is > fine from sched_ext POV. I can sync with tip/sched/core as necessary. tip/sched/core should now have that merge resolved properly too. Thanks!