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:   Sat, 23 May 2020 14:23:45 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        elver@google.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree
Message-ID: <20200523212345.GR2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20200522033119.1bbd99c5@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20200521173520.GL6608@willie-the-truck>
 <20200522171708.5f392fde@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20200522174944.1a1732fa@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20200523001223.GA23921@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200523064643.GA27431@zn.tnic>
 <87a71zq8ml.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20200523150614.GP2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <871rnaqxor.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <871rnaqxor.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:05:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> writes:
> > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:54:26AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> core/rcu is the one which diverged and caused the merge conflict with
> >> PPC to happen twice. So Paul needs to remove the stale core/rcu bits and
> >> rebase on the current version (which is not going to change again).
> >
> > So there will be another noinstr-rcu-* tag, and I will rebase on top
> > of that, correct?  If so, fair enough!
> 
> Here you go: noinstr-rcu-220-05-23
> 
> I wanted this to be 2020 and not 220 but I noticed after pushing it
> out. I guess it still does the job :)

Now -that- is what I call an old-school tag name!!!  ;-)

I remerged, rebased, and pushed to -rcu branch "dev".

If it survives testing, I will reset -rcu branch "rcu/next" as well.

							Thanx, Paul