linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: include/linux/lockdep.h between commit: a046a86082cc ("lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion") from the tip tree and commit: 0eb8743dc570 ("lockdep: Cleanup PREEMPT_COUNT leftovers") from the rcu tree. I fixed it up (see

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/entry/common.c between commit: bdcd178ada90 ("x86/entry: Use generic interrupt entry/exit code") from the tip tree and commit: 20f165b7d2c8 ("rcu: Remove unused __rcu_is_watching() function") from the rcu

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: include/linux/compiler.h between commit: 1d8fcbb76bb1 ("compiler.h: Move instrumentation_begin()/end() into new header") from the tip tree and commit: 3b9946ebaf2b ("rcu: Fixup noinstr warnings") from the rcu tree.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:44:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: > > include/linux/smp.h > > between commit: > > 380dc20ce843 ("smp, irq_work: Continue smp_call_function*() and irq_work*() > integration") > > from

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: include/linux/smp.h between commit: 380dc20ce843 ("smp, irq_work: Continue smp_call_function*() and irq_work*() integration") from the tip tree and commit: 7effc6f7b465 ("EXP kernel/smp: Provide CSD lock timeout

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 01:04:50PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/sched/core.c > > between commit: > > 964ed98b0752 ("sched/core: Fix ttwu() race") > > from the tip tree and commit: > > 3c88d09bfb1b

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: kernel/sched/core.c between commit: 964ed98b0752 ("sched/core: Fix ttwu() race") from the tip tree and commit: 3c88d09bfb1b ("EXP sched: Alleged fix for v5.8 merge-window scheduler issue") from the rcu tree. I fixed

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, On Fri, 29 May 2020 07:15:01 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > Given that the merge window might be opening in a couple days, my thought > is to defer these -rcu commits to my v5.9 pile, and then I resolve this > conflict in the -rcu tree when v5.8-rc1 comes out. I just now adjusted

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 04:41:32PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Fri, 29 May 2020 16:22:34 +1000 Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: > > > > kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > > between commits: > > > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi all, On Fri, 29 May 2020 16:22:34 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/rcu/tree.c > > between commits: > > 806f04e9fd2c ("rcu: Allow for smp_call_function() running callbacks from > idle") >

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: kernel/rcu/tree.c between commits: 806f04e9fd2c ("rcu: Allow for smp_call_function() running callbacks from idle") aaf2bc50df1f ("rcu: Abstract out rcu_irq_enter_check_tick() from rcu_nmi_enter()") from the tip tree

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 12:27:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > between commit: > > b3dae109fa89 ("sched/swait: Rename to exclusive") > > from the tip tree and commit: > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 12:27:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > between commit: > > b3dae109fa89 ("sched/swait: Rename to exclusive") > > from the tip tree and commit: > >

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h between commit: b3dae109fa89 ("sched/swait: Rename to exclusive") from the tip tree and commit: 57ada0a7f942 ("rcu: Convert grace-period requests to ->gp_seq") from the rcu tree. I fixed it

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h between commit: b3dae109fa89 ("sched/swait: Rename to exclusive") from the tip tree and commit: 57ada0a7f942 ("rcu: Convert grace-period requests to ->gp_seq") from the rcu tree. I fixed it

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: kernel/rcu/tree.c between commit: b04db8e19fc2 ("rcu: Use lockdep to assert IRQs are disabled/enabled") from the tip tree and various commits from the rcu tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: kernel/rcu/tree.c between commit: b04db8e19fc2 ("rcu: Use lockdep to assert IRQs are disabled/enabled") from the tip tree and various commits from the rcu tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/mm/tlb.c between commit: 94b1b03b519b ("x86/mm: Rework lazy TLB mode and TLB freshness tracking") from the tip tree and commit: 3ed668659e95 ("membarrier: Document scheduler barrier requirements") from the

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/mm/tlb.c between commit: 94b1b03b519b ("x86/mm: Rework lazy TLB mode and TLB freshness tracking") from the tip tree and commit: 3ed668659e95 ("membarrier: Document scheduler barrier requirements") from the

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:15:40AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers > wrote: > > /* > > * The full memory barrier implied by mm_cpumask update operations > > * is required by the membarrier system call. > > */ > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:15:40AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers > wrote: > > /* > > * The full memory barrier implied by mm_cpumask update operations > > * is required by the membarrier system call. > > */ > > > > What we want to order here

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:25:56AM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > - On Aug 1, 2017, at 12:03 AM, Paul E. McKenney > paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:04:05AM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > >> - On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney > >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:25:56AM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > - On Aug 1, 2017, at 12:03 AM, Paul E. McKenney > paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:04:05AM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > >> - On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney > >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

- On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Andy Lutomirski l...@kernel.org wrote: > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers > wrote: >> /* >> * The full memory barrier implied by mm_cpumask update operations >> * is required by the membarrier system call. >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

- On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Andy Lutomirski l...@kernel.org wrote: > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers > wrote: >> /* >> * The full memory barrier implied by mm_cpumask update operations >> * is required by the membarrier system call. >> */ >> >> What we want to order

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:58:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:43:14AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> > Anyway, can you document whatever property you require with a comment >> > in

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:58:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:43:14AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> > Anyway, can you document whatever property you require with a comment >> > in switch_mm() or wherever

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > /* > * The full memory barrier implied by mm_cpumask update operations > * is required by the membarrier system call. > */ > > What we want to order here is: > > prev userspace memory accesses > schedule

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > /* > * The full memory barrier implied by mm_cpumask update operations > * is required by the membarrier system call. > */ > > What we want to order here is: > > prev userspace memory accesses > schedule >(it's already there) [A] >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:58:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:43:14AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > Anyway, can you document whatever property you require with a comment > > in switch_mm() or wherever you're finding that property so that future > > arch changes

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:58:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:43:14AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > Anyway, can you document whatever property you require with a comment > > in switch_mm() or wherever you're finding that property so that future > > arch changes

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

- On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Andy Lutomirski l...@kernel.org wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Paul E. McKenney > wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:04:05AM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >>> - On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney >>>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

- On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Andy Lutomirski l...@kernel.org wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Paul E. McKenney > wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:04:05AM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >>> - On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney >>> paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com >>>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:43:14AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > Anyway, can you document whatever property you require with a comment > in switch_mm() or wherever you're finding that property so that future > arch changes don't break it? We need _a_ smp_mb after rq->curr store. x86 has plenty.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:43:14AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > Anyway, can you document whatever property you require with a comment > in switch_mm() or wherever you're finding that property so that future > arch changes don't break it? We need _a_ smp_mb after rq->curr store. x86 has plenty.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:04:05AM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> - On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney >> paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: >> >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:04:05AM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> - On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney >> paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: >> > Thanx, Paul > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

- On Aug 1, 2017, at 12:03 AM, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:04:05AM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> - On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney >> paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com >> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 01:50:29PM

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

- On Aug 1, 2017, at 12:03 AM, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:04:05AM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> - On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney >> paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com >> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 01:50:29PM

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:04:05AM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > - On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney > paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 01:50:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Hi Paul, > >> > >> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:04:05AM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > - On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney > paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 01:50:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Hi Paul, > >> > >> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

- On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 01:50:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Paul, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: >> >> arch/x86/mm/tlb.c >> >> between commit: >> >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

- On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 01:50:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Paul, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: >> >> arch/x86/mm/tlb.c >> >> between commit: >> >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 01:50:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: > > arch/x86/mm/tlb.c > > between commit: > > 94b1b03b519b ("x86/mm: Rework lazy TLB mode and TLB freshness tracking") > > from the tip tree and

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 01:50:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: > > arch/x86/mm/tlb.c > > between commit: > > 94b1b03b519b ("x86/mm: Rework lazy TLB mode and TLB freshness tracking") > > from the tip tree and

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/mm/tlb.c between commit: 94b1b03b519b ("x86/mm: Rework lazy TLB mode and TLB freshness tracking") from the tip tree and commit: d7713e8f8b23 ("membarrier: Expedited private command") from the rcu tree. I

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/mm/tlb.c between commit: 94b1b03b519b ("x86/mm: Rework lazy TLB mode and TLB freshness tracking") from the tip tree and commit: d7713e8f8b23 ("membarrier: Expedited private command") from the rcu tree. I

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:26:28PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/rcu/tree.c > > between commit: > > 4df8374254ea ("rcu: Convert rcutree to hotplug state machine") > > from the tip tree and commit: > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:26:28PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/rcu/tree.c > > between commit: > > 4df8374254ea ("rcu: Convert rcutree to hotplug state machine") > > from the tip tree and commit: > >

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: kernel/rcu/tree.c between commit: 4df8374254ea ("rcu: Convert rcutree to hotplug state machine") from the tip tree and commit: 2a84cde733b0 ("rcu: Exact CPU-online tracking for RCU") from the rcu tree. I fixed it up

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: kernel/rcu/tree.c between commit: 4df8374254ea ("rcu: Convert rcutree to hotplug state machine") from the tip tree and commit: 2a84cde733b0 ("rcu: Exact CPU-online tracking for RCU") from the rcu tree. I fixed it up

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 03:14:41PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/rcu/tree.c > > between commit: > > 6428671bae97 ("locking/mutex: Optimize mutex_trylock() fast-path") > > from the tip tree and commit: >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 03:14:41PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/rcu/tree.c > > between commit: > > 6428671bae97 ("locking/mutex: Optimize mutex_trylock() fast-path") > > from the tip tree and commit: >

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: kernel/rcu/tree.c between commit: 6428671bae97 ("locking/mutex: Optimize mutex_trylock() fast-path") from the tip tree and commit: 3991b105efd5 ("rcu: Move expedited code from tree.c to tree_exp.h") from the rcu

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: kernel/rcu/tree.c between commit: 6428671bae97 ("locking/mutex: Optimize mutex_trylock() fast-path") from the tip tree and commit: 3991b105efd5 ("rcu: Move expedited code from tree.c to tree_exp.h") from the rcu

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 03:13:06PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/rcu/tree.c > > between commit: > > 27d50c7eeb0f ("rcu: Make CPU_DYING_IDLE an explicit call") > > from the tip tree and commit: > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 03:13:06PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/rcu/tree.c > > between commit: > > 27d50c7eeb0f ("rcu: Make CPU_DYING_IDLE an explicit call") > > from the tip tree and commit: > >

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: kernel/rcu/tree.c between commit: 27d50c7eeb0f ("rcu: Make CPU_DYING_IDLE an explicit call") from the tip tree and commit: 67c583a7de34 ("RCU: Privatize rcu_node::lock") from the rcu tree. I fixed it up (see below)

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: kernel/rcu/tree.c between commit: 27d50c7eeb0f ("rcu: Make CPU_DYING_IDLE an explicit call") from the tip tree and commit: 67c583a7de34 ("RCU: Privatize rcu_node::lock") from the rcu tree. I fixed it up (see below)

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/kernel/traps.c between commit: 8c84014f3bbb ("x86/entry: Remove exception_enter() from most trap handlers") from the tip tree and commit: 02300fdb3e5f ("rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/kernel/traps.c between commit: 8c84014f3bbb (x86/entry: Remove exception_enter() from most trap handlers) from the tip tree and commit: 02300fdb3e5f (rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN())

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got conflicts in include/linux/rcupdate.h, include/linux/rcutree.h and kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h between commit c1ad348b452a ("tick: Nohz: Rework next timer evaluation") from the tip tree and commit f49f794683d6 ("rcu: Eliminate a few

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got conflicts in include/linux/rcupdate.h, include/linux/rcutree.h and kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h between commit c1ad348b452a (tick: Nohz: Rework next timer evaluation) from the tip tree and commit f49f794683d6 (rcu: Eliminate a few

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:18:01PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in > kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c between commit d277d868dab6 ("rcu: Use MAX_NICE > to replace hardcoding of 19") from the tip tree (where this file is > called

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c between commit d277d868dab6 ("rcu: Use MAX_NICE to replace hardcoding of 19") from the tip tree (where this file is called kernel/rcu/torture.c) and commit 5ccf60f23d33 ("rcutorture: Rename PRINTK to

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c between commit d277d868dab6 (rcu: Use MAX_NICE to replace hardcoding of 19) from the tip tree (where this file is called kernel/rcu/torture.c) and commit 5ccf60f23d33 (rcutorture: Rename PRINTK to TOROUT)

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:18:01PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c between commit d277d868dab6 (rcu: Use MAX_NICE to replace hardcoding of 19) from the tip tree (where this file is called

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 09:39 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 01:59:47PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in > > kernel/sched/core.c between commit f319da0c6894 ("sched: Fix load avg vs > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 01:59:47PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in > kernel/sched/core.c between commit f319da0c6894 ("sched: Fix load avg vs > cpu-hotplug") from the tip tree and commit ead504e5600e ("sched: Fix load > avg

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 01:59:47PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in kernel/sched/core.c between commit f319da0c6894 (sched: Fix load avg vs cpu-hotplug) from the tip tree and commit ead504e5600e (sched: Fix load avg vs

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 09:39 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 01:59:47PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in kernel/sched/core.c between commit f319da0c6894 (sched: Fix load avg vs cpu-hotplug) from the

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in kernel/sched/core.c between commit f319da0c6894 ("sched: Fix load avg vs cpu-hotplug") from the tip tree and commit ead504e5600e ("sched: Fix load avg vs cpu-hotplug") from the rcu tree. These are 2 slightly different versions

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in kernel/sched/core.c between commit f319da0c6894 (sched: Fix load avg vs cpu-hotplug) from the tip tree and commit ead504e5600e (sched: Fix load avg vs cpu-hotplug) from the rcu tree. These are 2 slightly different versions of

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:01:43PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in arch/Kconfig > between commit b952741c8079 ("cputime: Generalize > CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING") from the tip tree and commit 3dbdfc26e27f > ("rcu: Settle

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in arch/Kconfig between commit b952741c8079 ("cputime: Generalize CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING") from the tip tree and commit 3dbdfc26e27f ("rcu: Settle config for userspace extended quiescent state") from the rcu tree. Just context

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in arch/Kconfig between commit b952741c8079 (cputime: Generalize CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING) from the tip tree and commit 3dbdfc26e27f (rcu: Settle config for userspace extended quiescent state) from the rcu tree. Just context

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:01:43PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in arch/Kconfig between commit b952741c8079 (cputime: Generalize CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING) from the tip tree and commit 3dbdfc26e27f (rcu: Settle config for

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:27:35PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in > kernel/rcutree.h between commit 62ab7072476a ("rcu: Use > smp_hotplug_thread facility for RCUs per-CPU kthread") from the tip tree > and commit

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:27:22PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in > kernel/rcutree_plugin.h between commit 62ab7072476a ("rcu: Use > smp_hotplug_thread facility for RCUs per-CPU kthread") from the tip tree > and commit

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in kernel/rcutree.h between commit 62ab7072476a ("rcu: Use smp_hotplug_thread facility for RCUs per-CPU kthread") from the tip tree and commit daa5d37ff51b ("rcu: Prevent force_quiescent_state() memory contention") from the rcu

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in kernel/rcutree_plugin.h between commit 62ab7072476a ("rcu: Use smp_hotplug_thread facility for RCUs per-CPU kthread") from the tip tree and commit 8732d57a8ce0 ("rcu: Provide OOM handler to motivate lazy RCU callbacks") from the

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in kernel/rcutree_plugin.h between commit 62ab7072476a (rcu: Use smp_hotplug_thread facility for RCUs per-CPU kthread) from the tip tree and commit 8732d57a8ce0 (rcu: Provide OOM handler to motivate lazy RCU callbacks) from the rcu

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in kernel/rcutree.h between commit 62ab7072476a (rcu: Use smp_hotplug_thread facility for RCUs per-CPU kthread) from the tip tree and commit daa5d37ff51b (rcu: Prevent force_quiescent_state() memory contention) from the rcu tree.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:27:22PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in kernel/rcutree_plugin.h between commit 62ab7072476a (rcu: Use smp_hotplug_thread facility for RCUs per-CPU kthread) from the tip tree and commit 8732d57a8ce0

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:27:35PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in kernel/rcutree.h between commit 62ab7072476a (rcu: Use smp_hotplug_thread facility for RCUs per-CPU kthread) from the tip tree and commit daa5d37ff51b (rcu: