Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2022 12:16:32 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the cgroup tree
Message-ID: <Yx+vwLUYNl4U3IAv@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20220912161812.072aaa3b@canb.auug.org.au>
 <Yx7iEv/wy5Olgu0M@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <Yx9+IIQqizUB/DJu@slm.duckdns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yx9+IIQqizUB/DJu@slm.duckdns.org>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 08:44:48AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 09:38:58AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 04:18:12PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > After merging the cgroup tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> > 
> > Hmm,. TJ should I base sched/psi on top of drivers-core-next and your
> > cgroup tree?
> 
> Yeah, this is kinda nasty. Lemme just pull drivers-core-next into
> cgorup/for-6.1 so that folks don't have to worry about this and you can just
> pull that one.

I initially thought that driver-core-next was conflicting with
cgroup/for-6.1 but this is simpler. It's a straight forward conflict between
the PSI patchset in the tip tree and changes in cgroup/for-6.1 which are
cleaning up some cftype handling, and the patch that Stephen applied is
correct. So, we can do one of the following two:

1. Leave it as-is. Stephen's patch is correct and we can just let Linus know
   how to resolve it on the pull requests.

2. Pull cgroup/for-6.1 into the tip tree and preemptively resolve the
   conflict there.

I'm leaning towards #1 but #2 is fine too. Peter, what do you wanna do?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun