Hi TIP folks,
I'm looking to rebase my READ_ONCE() series [1] on top of the KCSAN patches
so that we can get them in for 5.8. However, tip/locking/kcsan seems to be
missing some bits:
* An update to checkpatch.pl to warn about missing comments for
data_race():
https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
* I'm unable to apply these two patches from Marco that are needed for
my READ_ONCE() work:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
I think these depend on stuff that has been queued by Paul, and appears
in linux-next, but to be honest with you I'm quite confused about what
is queued for 5.8 and what isn't.
What's the best base for me to use?
Cheers,
Will
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:28:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi TIP folks,
>
> I'm looking to rebase my READ_ONCE() series [1] on top of the KCSAN patches
> so that we can get them in for 5.8. However, tip/locking/kcsan seems to be
> missing some bits:
>
> * An update to checkpatch.pl to warn about missing comments for
> data_race():
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
For some reason, I thought this was going up some other tree, but I do
not see it in -next. So unless I hear otherwise, I will pull it into
the v5.8 kcsan branch.
> * I'm unable to apply these two patches from Marco that are needed for
> my READ_ONCE() work:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>
> I think these depend on stuff that has been queued by Paul, and appears
> in linux-next, but to be honest with you I'm quite confused about what
> is queued for 5.8 and what isn't.
This one is queued, but I currently have it in the v5.9 pile (but
tentatively for v5.8). Unless Marco tells me otherwise, I will move it
to the v5.8 branch, which will be part of my pull request next week.
> What's the best base for me to use?
The -next tree has the latter, but not yet the former.
Hopefully we can get this straightened out, and please accept my apologies
for the hassle!
Thanx, Paul
> Cheers,
>
> Will
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Cheers for the quick reply!
>
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 07:36:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:28:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > I'm looking to rebase my READ_ONCE() series [1] on top of the KCSAN patches
> > > so that we can get them in for 5.8. However, tip/locking/kcsan seems to be
> > > missing some bits:
> > >
> > > * An update to checkpatch.pl to warn about missing comments for
> > > data_race():
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> >
> > For some reason, I thought this was going up some other tree, but I do
> > not see it in -next. So unless I hear otherwise, I will pull it into
> > the v5.8 kcsan branch.
>
> Brill, thanks.
>
> > > * I'm unable to apply these two patches from Marco that are needed for
> > > my READ_ONCE() work:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> > >
> > > I think these depend on stuff that has been queued by Paul, and appears
> > > in linux-next, but to be honest with you I'm quite confused about what
> > > is queued for 5.8 and what isn't.
> >
> > This one is queued, but I currently have it in the v5.9 pile (but
> > tentatively for v5.8). Unless Marco tells me otherwise, I will move it
> > to the v5.8 branch, which will be part of my pull request next week.
>
> Great, then this would all show up on tip/locking/kscan, right?
>
> > > What's the best base for me to use?
> >
> > The -next tree has the latter, but not yet the former.
>
> That probably means -next is good enough for me to cook a new version of my
> series, and then I can make a proper branch next week.
>
> > Hopefully we can get this straightened out, and please accept my apologies
> > for the hassle!
>
> No need to apologise, I just couldn't figure out what was what and decided
> it was easier to ask the experts ;)
Just confirming that I don't see any issues with the plan -- the
patches that Will needs are good to go into the v5.8 branch.
Thanks,
-- Marco
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:26:56PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Cheers for the quick reply!
> >
> > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 07:36:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:28:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > I'm looking to rebase my READ_ONCE() series [1] on top of the KCSAN patches
> > > > so that we can get them in for 5.8. However, tip/locking/kcsan seems to be
> > > > missing some bits:
> > > >
> > > > * An update to checkpatch.pl to warn about missing comments for
> > > > data_race():
> > > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> > >
> > > For some reason, I thought this was going up some other tree, but I do
> > > not see it in -next. So unless I hear otherwise, I will pull it into
> > > the v5.8 kcsan branch.
> >
> > Brill, thanks.
> >
> > > > * I'm unable to apply these two patches from Marco that are needed for
> > > > my READ_ONCE() work:
> > > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> > > >
> > > > I think these depend on stuff that has been queued by Paul, and appears
> > > > in linux-next, but to be honest with you I'm quite confused about what
> > > > is queued for 5.8 and what isn't.
> > >
> > > This one is queued, but I currently have it in the v5.9 pile (but
> > > tentatively for v5.8). Unless Marco tells me otherwise, I will move it
> > > to the v5.8 branch, which will be part of my pull request next week.
> >
> > Great, then this would all show up on tip/locking/kscan, right?
> >
> > > > What's the best base for me to use?
> > >
> > > The -next tree has the latter, but not yet the former.
> >
> > That probably means -next is good enough for me to cook a new version of my
> > series, and then I can make a proper branch next week.
> >
> > > Hopefully we can get this straightened out, and please accept my apologies
> > > for the hassle!
> >
> > No need to apologise, I just couldn't figure out what was what and decided
> > it was easier to ask the experts ;)
>
> Just confirming that I don't see any issues with the plan -- the
> patches that Will needs are good to go into the v5.8 branch.
OK, I have updated -rcu's kcsan and kcsan-dev branches. Could you please
double-check, given that pull-request time is quite soon?
Thanx, Paul
Hi Paul,
Cheers for the quick reply!
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 07:36:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:28:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > I'm looking to rebase my READ_ONCE() series [1] on top of the KCSAN patches
> > so that we can get them in for 5.8. However, tip/locking/kcsan seems to be
> > missing some bits:
> >
> > * An update to checkpatch.pl to warn about missing comments for
> > data_race():
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>
> For some reason, I thought this was going up some other tree, but I do
> not see it in -next. So unless I hear otherwise, I will pull it into
> the v5.8 kcsan branch.
Brill, thanks.
> > * I'm unable to apply these two patches from Marco that are needed for
> > my READ_ONCE() work:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> >
> > I think these depend on stuff that has been queued by Paul, and appears
> > in linux-next, but to be honest with you I'm quite confused about what
> > is queued for 5.8 and what isn't.
>
> This one is queued, but I currently have it in the v5.9 pile (but
> tentatively for v5.8). Unless Marco tells me otherwise, I will move it
> to the v5.8 branch, which will be part of my pull request next week.
Great, then this would all show up on tip/locking/kscan, right?
> > What's the best base for me to use?
>
> The -next tree has the latter, but not yet the former.
That probably means -next is good enough for me to cook a new version of my
series, and then I can make a proper branch next week.
> Hopefully we can get this straightened out, and please accept my apologies
> for the hassle!
No need to apologise, I just couldn't figure out what was what and decided
it was easier to ask the experts ;)
Cheers again,
Will
On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 20:02, Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:26:56PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Paul,
> > >
> > > Cheers for the quick reply!
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 07:36:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:28:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > I'm looking to rebase my READ_ONCE() series [1] on top of the KCSAN patches
> > > > > so that we can get them in for 5.8. However, tip/locking/kcsan seems to be
> > > > > missing some bits:
> > > > >
> > > > > * An update to checkpatch.pl to warn about missing comments for
> > > > > data_race():
> > > > >
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> > > >
> > > > For some reason, I thought this was going up some other tree, but I do
> > > > not see it in -next. So unless I hear otherwise, I will pull it into
> > > > the v5.8 kcsan branch.
> > >
> > > Brill, thanks.
> > >
> > > > > * I'm unable to apply these two patches from Marco that are needed for
> > > > > my READ_ONCE() work:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> > > > >
> > > > > I think these depend on stuff that has been queued by Paul, and appears
> > > > > in linux-next, but to be honest with you I'm quite confused about what
> > > > > is queued for 5.8 and what isn't.
> > > >
> > > > This one is queued, but I currently have it in the v5.9 pile (but
> > > > tentatively for v5.8). Unless Marco tells me otherwise, I will move it
> > > > to the v5.8 branch, which will be part of my pull request next week.
> > >
> > > Great, then this would all show up on tip/locking/kscan, right?
> > >
> > > > > What's the best base for me to use?
> > > >
> > > > The -next tree has the latter, but not yet the former.
> > >
> > > That probably means -next is good enough for me to cook a new version of my
> > > series, and then I can make a proper branch next week.
> > >
> > > > Hopefully we can get this straightened out, and please accept my apologies
> > > > for the hassle!
> > >
> > > No need to apologise, I just couldn't figure out what was what and decided
> > > it was easier to ask the experts ;)
> >
> > Just confirming that I don't see any issues with the plan -- the
> > patches that Will needs are good to go into the v5.8 branch.
>
> OK, I have updated -rcu's kcsan and kcsan-dev branches. Could you please
> double-check, given that pull-request time is quite soon?
I believe "objtool, kcsan: Add kcsan_disable_current() and
kcsan_enable_current_nowarn()" is missing, which should go after
"kcsan: Add __kcsan_{enable,disable}_current() variants".
Thanks,
-- Marco
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 09:11:23PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 20:02, Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:26:56PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Paul,
> > > >
> > > > Cheers for the quick reply!
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 07:36:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:28:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > > I'm looking to rebase my READ_ONCE() series [1] on top of the KCSAN patches
> > > > > > so that we can get them in for 5.8. However, tip/locking/kcsan seems to be
> > > > > > missing some bits:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * An update to checkpatch.pl to warn about missing comments for
> > > > > > data_race():
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > > For some reason, I thought this was going up some other tree, but I do
> > > > > not see it in -next. So unless I hear otherwise, I will pull it into
> > > > > the v5.8 kcsan branch.
> > > >
> > > > Brill, thanks.
> > > >
> > > > > > * I'm unable to apply these two patches from Marco that are needed for
> > > > > > my READ_ONCE() work:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think these depend on stuff that has been queued by Paul, and appears
> > > > > > in linux-next, but to be honest with you I'm quite confused about what
> > > > > > is queued for 5.8 and what isn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > This one is queued, but I currently have it in the v5.9 pile (but
> > > > > tentatively for v5.8). Unless Marco tells me otherwise, I will move it
> > > > > to the v5.8 branch, which will be part of my pull request next week.
> > > >
> > > > Great, then this would all show up on tip/locking/kscan, right?
> > > >
> > > > > > What's the best base for me to use?
> > > > >
> > > > > The -next tree has the latter, but not yet the former.
> > > >
> > > > That probably means -next is good enough for me to cook a new version of my
> > > > series, and then I can make a proper branch next week.
> > > >
> > > > > Hopefully we can get this straightened out, and please accept my apologies
> > > > > for the hassle!
> > > >
> > > > No need to apologise, I just couldn't figure out what was what and decided
> > > > it was easier to ask the experts ;)
> > >
> > > Just confirming that I don't see any issues with the plan -- the
> > > patches that Will needs are good to go into the v5.8 branch.
> >
> > OK, I have updated -rcu's kcsan and kcsan-dev branches. Could you please
> > double-check, given that pull-request time is quite soon?
>
> I believe "objtool, kcsan: Add kcsan_disable_current() and
> kcsan_enable_current_nowarn()" is missing, which should go after
> "kcsan: Add __kcsan_{enable,disable}_current() variants".
Thank you for checking! I will move that one also.
Thanx, Paul
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:37:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 09:11:23PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 20:02, Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:26:56PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Paul,
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers for the quick reply!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 07:36:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:28:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > > > I'm looking to rebase my READ_ONCE() series [1] on top of the KCSAN patches
> > > > > > > so that we can get them in for 5.8. However, tip/locking/kcsan seems to be
> > > > > > > missing some bits:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * An update to checkpatch.pl to warn about missing comments for
> > > > > > > data_race():
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For some reason, I thought this was going up some other tree, but I do
> > > > > > not see it in -next. So unless I hear otherwise, I will pull it into
> > > > > > the v5.8 kcsan branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brill, thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > * I'm unable to apply these two patches from Marco that are needed for
> > > > > > > my READ_ONCE() work:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think these depend on stuff that has been queued by Paul, and appears
> > > > > > > in linux-next, but to be honest with you I'm quite confused about what
> > > > > > > is queued for 5.8 and what isn't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This one is queued, but I currently have it in the v5.9 pile (but
> > > > > > tentatively for v5.8). Unless Marco tells me otherwise, I will move it
> > > > > > to the v5.8 branch, which will be part of my pull request next week.
> > > > >
> > > > > Great, then this would all show up on tip/locking/kscan, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > > > What's the best base for me to use?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The -next tree has the latter, but not yet the former.
> > > > >
> > > > > That probably means -next is good enough for me to cook a new version of my
> > > > > series, and then I can make a proper branch next week.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hopefully we can get this straightened out, and please accept my apologies
> > > > > > for the hassle!
> > > > >
> > > > > No need to apologise, I just couldn't figure out what was what and decided
> > > > > it was easier to ask the experts ;)
> > > >
> > > > Just confirming that I don't see any issues with the plan -- the
> > > > patches that Will needs are good to go into the v5.8 branch.
> > >
> > > OK, I have updated -rcu's kcsan and kcsan-dev branches. Could you please
> > > double-check, given that pull-request time is quite soon?
> >
> > I believe "objtool, kcsan: Add kcsan_disable_current() and
> > kcsan_enable_current_nowarn()" is missing, which should go after
> > "kcsan: Add __kcsan_{enable,disable}_current() variants".
>
> Thank you for checking! I will move that one also.
And it is moved. FYI, I will likely be sending my KCSAN pull request
late tomorrow (Thursday) Pacific Time, a few days earlier than normal.
Thanx, Paul
On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 23:47, Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:37:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 09:11:23PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 20:02, Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:26:56PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Paul,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers for the quick reply!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 07:36:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:28:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > > > > I'm looking to rebase my READ_ONCE() series [1] on top of the KCSAN patches
> > > > > > > > so that we can get them in for 5.8. However, tip/locking/kcsan seems to be
> > > > > > > > missing some bits:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * An update to checkpatch.pl to warn about missing comments for
> > > > > > > > data_race():
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For some reason, I thought this was going up some other tree, but I do
> > > > > > > not see it in -next. So unless I hear otherwise, I will pull it into
> > > > > > > the v5.8 kcsan branch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brill, thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * I'm unable to apply these two patches from Marco that are needed for
> > > > > > > > my READ_ONCE() work:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think these depend on stuff that has been queued by Paul, and appears
> > > > > > > > in linux-next, but to be honest with you I'm quite confused about what
> > > > > > > > is queued for 5.8 and what isn't.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This one is queued, but I currently have it in the v5.9 pile (but
> > > > > > > tentatively for v5.8). Unless Marco tells me otherwise, I will move it
> > > > > > > to the v5.8 branch, which will be part of my pull request next week.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Great, then this would all show up on tip/locking/kscan, right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What's the best base for me to use?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The -next tree has the latter, but not yet the former.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That probably means -next is good enough for me to cook a new version of my
> > > > > > series, and then I can make a proper branch next week.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hopefully we can get this straightened out, and please accept my apologies
> > > > > > > for the hassle!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No need to apologise, I just couldn't figure out what was what and decided
> > > > > > it was easier to ask the experts ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > Just confirming that I don't see any issues with the plan -- the
> > > > > patches that Will needs are good to go into the v5.8 branch.
> > > >
> > > > OK, I have updated -rcu's kcsan and kcsan-dev branches. Could you please
> > > > double-check, given that pull-request time is quite soon?
> > >
> > > I believe "objtool, kcsan: Add kcsan_disable_current() and
> > > kcsan_enable_current_nowarn()" is missing, which should go after
> > > "kcsan: Add __kcsan_{enable,disable}_current() variants".
> >
> > Thank you for checking! I will move that one also.
>
> And it is moved. FYI, I will likely be sending my KCSAN pull request
> late tomorrow (Thursday) Pacific Time, a few days earlier than normal.
Looks good, thank you!
-- Marco
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 11:34:55AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 23:47, Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:37:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 09:11:23PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 20:02, Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:26:56PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Paul,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers for the quick reply!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 07:36:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:28:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I'm looking to rebase my READ_ONCE() series [1] on top of the KCSAN patches
> > > > > > > > > so that we can get them in for 5.8. However, tip/locking/kcsan seems to be
> > > > > > > > > missing some bits:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * An update to checkpatch.pl to warn about missing comments for
> > > > > > > > > data_race():
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For some reason, I thought this was going up some other tree, but I do
> > > > > > > > not see it in -next. So unless I hear otherwise, I will pull it into
> > > > > > > > the v5.8 kcsan branch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Brill, thanks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * I'm unable to apply these two patches from Marco that are needed for
> > > > > > > > > my READ_ONCE() work:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think these depend on stuff that has been queued by Paul, and appears
> > > > > > > > > in linux-next, but to be honest with you I'm quite confused about what
> > > > > > > > > is queued for 5.8 and what isn't.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This one is queued, but I currently have it in the v5.9 pile (but
> > > > > > > > tentatively for v5.8). Unless Marco tells me otherwise, I will move it
> > > > > > > > to the v5.8 branch, which will be part of my pull request next week.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Great, then this would all show up on tip/locking/kscan, right?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What's the best base for me to use?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The -next tree has the latter, but not yet the former.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That probably means -next is good enough for me to cook a new version of my
> > > > > > > series, and then I can make a proper branch next week.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hopefully we can get this straightened out, and please accept my apologies
> > > > > > > > for the hassle!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No need to apologise, I just couldn't figure out what was what and decided
> > > > > > > it was easier to ask the experts ;)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just confirming that I don't see any issues with the plan -- the
> > > > > > patches that Will needs are good to go into the v5.8 branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, I have updated -rcu's kcsan and kcsan-dev branches. Could you please
> > > > > double-check, given that pull-request time is quite soon?
> > > >
> > > > I believe "objtool, kcsan: Add kcsan_disable_current() and
> > > > kcsan_enable_current_nowarn()" is missing, which should go after
> > > > "kcsan: Add __kcsan_{enable,disable}_current() variants".
> > >
> > > Thank you for checking! I will move that one also.
> >
> > And it is moved. FYI, I will likely be sending my KCSAN pull request
> > late tomorrow (Thursday) Pacific Time, a few days earlier than normal.
>
> Looks good, thank you!
And it did pass overnight testing, so looking good! Next step is a
quick test without KCSAN enabled.
Thanx, Paul