On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 09:11:23PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote: > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 20:02, Paul E. McKenney <paul...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:26:56PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote: > > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > > > > > Cheers for the quick reply! > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 07:36:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:28:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > > I'm looking to rebase my READ_ONCE() series [1] on top of the KCSAN > > > > > > patches > > > > > > so that we can get them in for 5.8. However, tip/locking/kcsan > > > > > > seems to be > > > > > > missing some bits: > > > > > > > > > > > > * An update to checkpatch.pl to warn about missing comments for > > > > > > data_race(): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200401101714.44781-1-el...@google.com > > > > > > > > > > For some reason, I thought this was going up some other tree, but I do > > > > > not see it in -next. So unless I hear otherwise, I will pull it into > > > > > the v5.8 kcsan branch. > > > > > > > > Brill, thanks. > > > > > > > > > > * I'm unable to apply these two patches from Marco that are > > > > > > needed for > > > > > > my READ_ONCE() work: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200424154730.190041-1-el...@google.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > I think these depend on stuff that has been queued by Paul, and > > > > > > appears > > > > > > in linux-next, but to be honest with you I'm quite confused > > > > > > about what > > > > > > is queued for 5.8 and what isn't. > > > > > > > > > > This one is queued, but I currently have it in the v5.9 pile (but > > > > > tentatively for v5.8). Unless Marco tells me otherwise, I will move > > > > > it > > > > > to the v5.8 branch, which will be part of my pull request next week. > > > > > > > > Great, then this would all show up on tip/locking/kscan, right? > > > > > > > > > > What's the best base for me to use? > > > > > > > > > > The -next tree has the latter, but not yet the former. > > > > > > > > That probably means -next is good enough for me to cook a new version > > > > of my > > > > series, and then I can make a proper branch next week. > > > > > > > > > Hopefully we can get this straightened out, and please accept my > > > > > apologies > > > > > for the hassle! > > > > > > > > No need to apologise, I just couldn't figure out what was what and > > > > decided > > > > it was easier to ask the experts ;) > > > > > > Just confirming that I don't see any issues with the plan -- the > > > patches that Will needs are good to go into the v5.8 branch. > > > > OK, I have updated -rcu's kcsan and kcsan-dev branches. Could you please > > double-check, given that pull-request time is quite soon? > > I believe "objtool, kcsan: Add kcsan_disable_current() and > kcsan_enable_current_nowarn()" is missing, which should go after > "kcsan: Add __kcsan_{enable,disable}_current() variants".
Thank you for checking! I will move that one also. Thanx, Paul