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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <20200523212345.GR2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200525003706.GA13789@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
In-Reply-To: <20200525003706.GA13789@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
From:   Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 May 2020 10:20:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CANpmjNMjvJqVFiY+xSUK=oePP9TsDzZHVh6XKM77ar5fh_fdFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 02:37, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 02:23:45PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 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.
>
> And passed!  The compile times are back to their old selves on my
> laptop as well.
>
> Thank you for setting this up, Thomas!!!

I just noticed that -rcu and -tip both still have their own version of
"ubsan, kcsan: Don't combine sanitizer with kcov on clang". For there
to not be any conflicts in -next, "ubsan, kcsan: Don't combine
sanitizer with kcov on clang" could be dropped from -rcu.

Thanks,
-- Marco