Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755866AbaJINNv (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:13:51 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:52570 "EHLO mail-wg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754656AbaJINNl (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:13:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 15:13:31 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Tejun Heo , Rusty Russell , Christoph Lameter , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the percpu tree with the tip tree Message-ID: <20141009131328.GB25790@lerouge> References: <20141009155018.0b8f26f6@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141009155018.0b8f26f6@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 03:50:18PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the percpu tree got a conflict in > kernel/irq_work.c between commit 76a33061b932 ("irq_work: Force raised > irq work to run on irq work interrupt") from the tip tree and commit > 22127e93c587 ("time: Replace __get_cpu_var uses") from the percpu tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action > is required). > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au > > diff --cc kernel/irq_work.c > index 385b85aded19,345d19edcdae..000000000000 > --- a/kernel/irq_work.c > +++ b/kernel/irq_work.c > @@@ -113,12 -113,10 +113,12 @@@ bool irq_work_needs_cpu(void > { > struct llist_head *raised, *lazy; > > - raised = &__get_cpu_var(raised_list); > - lazy = &__get_cpu_var(lazy_list); > + raised = this_cpu_ptr(&raised_list); > + lazy = this_cpu_ptr(&lazy_list); Ah thanks! The conflict is compile time rather than merge time, thanks for spotting it! Should we notify Linus about it? That's certainly something that should be applied with the percpu tree. > - if (llist_empty(raised) && llist_empty(lazy)) > - return false; > + > + if (llist_empty(raised) || arch_irq_work_has_interrupt()) > + if (llist_empty(lazy)) > + return false; > > /* All work should have been flushed before going offline */ > WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id())); -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/