Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-145926-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 14:20:24 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>,
	leobras@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-next@vger.kernel.org, yujie.liu@intel.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the risc-v tree
Message-ID: <605ad410-19cf-4e13-8594-fc7f5ecc2e39@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <b147ca95-c0e2-4729-b670-a1ee605369d2@paulmck-laptop>
 <mhng-4dd659ce-865c-48c8-bf51-397804035d60@palmer-ri-x1c9a>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <mhng-4dd659ce-865c-48c8-bf51-397804035d60@palmer-ri-x1c9a>

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:20:00AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:44:10 PDT (-0700), paulmck@kernel.org wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 12:32:47PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   arch/riscv/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
> > > 
> > > between commits:
> > > 
> > >   07a0a41cb77d ("riscv/cmpxchg: Deduplicate cmpxchg() asm and macros")
> > >   54280ca64626 ("riscv/cmpxchg: Implement cmpxchg for variables of size 1 and 2")
> > > 
> > > from the risc-v tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   b5e49f1af563 ("riscv: Emulate one-byte cmpxchg")
> > > 
> > > from the rcu tree.
> > > 
> > > I fixed it up (I just used the former as the latter seems to no longer be
> > > needed - I also undid the change to arch/riscv/Kconfig from the latter)
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Agreed, it looks to me like I should drop my RISC-V change in favor of
> > the native support.  Please let me know if I am mistaken.
> > 
> > If I do not hear otherwise, I will pull my commit out of -next in favor
> > of those two on my next rebase.
> 
> Sorry I forgot to send the shared tag.  We can pre-merge if you want, I'm
> fine either way just let me know.

Not a problem!  I will just keep it in -rcu for my testing, but such
that it does not go to -next.

							Thanx, Paul