Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 6 May 2020 07:36:16 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc:     mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
        elver@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please can I have a stable KCSAN branch for 5.8?
Message-ID: <20200506143616.GY2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20200506132816.GJ8043@willie-the-truck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200506132816.GJ8043@willie-the-truck>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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/20200401101714.44781-1-elver@google.com

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/20200424154730.190041-1-elver@google.com/
> 
>     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/20200421151537.19241-1-will@kernel.org