On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 23:47, Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:37:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 09:11:23PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote: > > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 20:02, Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:26:56PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <[email protected]> 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/[email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/[email protected]/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > And it is moved. FYI, I will likely be sending my KCSAN pull request > late tomorrow (Thursday) Pacific Time, a few days earlier than normal.
Looks good, thank you! -- Marco
