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 15:41:41 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@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: <20200506144141.GA12919@willie-the-truck>
References: <20200506132816.GJ8043@willie-the-truck>
 <20200506143616.GY2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200506143616.GY2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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/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.

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/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.

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