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: <20200701113448.3119f64f@canb.auug.org.au> <CANpmjNMz0rtC7AnXUnZKfg+egqqQ3BKPznsWUdEqJQDLTgAaAQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNMz0rtC7AnXUnZKfg+egqqQ3BKPznsWUdEqJQDLTgAaAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 1 Jul 2020 19:53:51 +0900
Message-ID: <CAK7LNAQ_X2Kmgqc3B1m7g1K8Xnvo+ja3A11eZXRFAOqDC4Jxcw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the kbuild tree
To:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.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 Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 2:52 PM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 03:34, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   kernel/kcsan/Makefile
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   f7c28e224da6 ("kbuild: remove cc-option test of -fno-stack-protector")
>
> Is it possible that this patch drops the KCSAN portion?


Done.

Thanks.


> The patch
> "kcsan: Simplify compiler flags" does the same, but is part of a
> future pull request intended for 5.9.
>
> The KCSAN changes had been in -next for well over a week. Also, I'm
> sorry I hadn't seen your patch before, otherwise I would have noticed
> this.
>
> Please see: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200624190236.GA6603@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72
>
> > from the kbuild tree and commits:
> >
> >   2839a232071f ("kcsan: Simplify compiler flags")
> >   61d56d7aa5ec ("kcsan: Disable branch tracing in core runtime")
> >
> > from the rcu tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I just used the rcu tree version) and can carry the fix
> > as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but
> > any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> > when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
> > cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
> > particularly complex conflicts.
>
> Thank you!
>


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada