From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756614AbbLAR74 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:59:56 -0500 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:36514 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751894AbbLAR7y (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:59:54 -0500 Subject: Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] locking_selftest: Save/restore migrate_disable_atomic in locking selftest To: Fengguang Wu References: <1448263178-28397-1-git-send-email-jianchuan.wang@windriver.com> <201511231529.iE0YvIjj%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <20151123084325.4f0b4d62@gandalf.local.home> <20151123141408.GA24611@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <5653241F.4070704@linutronix.de> <20151123150303.GA26066@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> Cc: Steven Rostedt , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kbuild-all@01.org, jianchuan.wang@windriver.com, tglx@linutronix.de, yang.shi@windriver.com From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <565DE010.3040907@linutronix.de> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 18:59:44 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151123150303.GA26066@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/23/2015 04:03 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote: > Thanks! Yes, a stable branch name would be better than "linux-4.1.y-rt" > that's like to become stable over time. finally. I got to it. I pushed two branches @ pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git: for-kbuild-bot/current-stable [0] for-kbuild-bot/prepare-release [1] Branch [0] should contain the last -RT release. This could be used for testing patches against (if you find one with the RT marker in subject). The tree should start a stable-tree marker (currently it is v4.1.13) and have -RT tree applied on top. You should be able compile after each commit (between the stable tag and HEAD) and nothing should introduce warnings or fail to compile. The second branch [1] would be similar to the first one except that I plan to push stuff there before I make a release it. Does this make sense or do I over think this? If you do compile tests, it would be nice if you could enable CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL. That is where most of the changes start to work. Nevertheless it should also work without it(i.e. no preemption or desktop). If you have slightly different naming scheme or suggestions just tell me I will adapt to it:) Thank you for the service. > Thanks, > Fengguang Sebastian