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, 12 May 2021 07:04:08 -0700
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the rcu
 tree
Message-ID: <YJvgWHRNbLAKd7DW@yury-ThinkPad>
References: <20210512150448.05728739@canb.auug.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210512150448.05728739@canb.auug.org.au>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 03:04:48PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   b18def121f07 ("bitmap_parse: Support 'all' semantics")
> 
> from the rcu tree and commit:
> 
>   458a0b70b496 ("bitmap_parse: support 'all' semantics")
> 
> from the akpm-current tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just use the latter 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.

The difference is that Paul's version replaced 'isolcpus=all' with
'rcu_nocb=all' in documentation, which is more correct in general.

Could you please stick with the Paul's version, and sorry for
confusion?

Thanks,
Yury