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:   Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:33:17 +0100
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the block tree
Message-ID: <20210212153317.GE94816@lothringen>
References: <20210211164852.7489b87d@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20210212151853.GC94816@lothringen>
 <858e7874-83c9-e4b9-a0a9-31be5a0c853e@kernel.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <858e7874-83c9-e4b9-a0a9-31be5a0c853e@kernel.dk>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 08:30:27AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/12/21 8:18 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 04:48:52PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got conflicts in:
> >>
> >>   include/linux/rcupdate.h
> >>   kernel/rcu/tree.c
> >>   kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> >>
> >> between commits:
> >>
> >>   3a7b5c87a0b2 ("rcu/nocb: Perform deferred wake up before last idle's need_resched() check")
> >>   e4234f21d2ea ("rcu: Pull deferred rcuog wake up to rcu_eqs_enter() callers")
> >>   14bbd41d5109 ("entry/kvm: Explicitly flush pending rcuog wakeup before last
> >>   rescheduling point")
> >> from the block tree and commits:
> > 
> > Isn't it tip:/sched/core instead of block?
> 
> It must be, maybe block just got merged first?

Yeah most likely.

> It's just sched/core in a topic branch, to satisfy a dependency.
> 
> But as mentioned in the previous email, I just need sched/smp to satisfy
> that dependency. So I've rebased that small topic branch with that
> pulled in instead. Won't solve the sched/core vs rcu tree conflict, but
> at least it's out of my hands now :-)

Ok, sounds good :)

Thanks.

> 
> -- 
> Jens Axboe
>