linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the modules and tip trees

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 29 May 2015 05:46:48 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the modules and
 tip trees

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 08:56:04AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:25:07PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Paul,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in
> > > include/linux/rcupdate.h between commits 0a04b0166929 ("rcu: Move
> > > lockless_dereference() out of rcupdate.h") from the modules tree and
> > > c1ad348b452a ("tick: Nohz: Rework next timer evaluation") from the tip
> > > tree and commits 7d0ae8086b82 ("rcu: Convert ACCESS_ONCE() to
> > > READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE()") and 3382adbc1bb8 ("rcu: Eliminate a few
> > > CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL #ifdefs") from the rcu tree.
> > > 
> > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> > > is required).
> > 
> > Thank you, Stephen!
> > 
> > Ingo, I can send you a pull request as is or I can merge c1ad348b452a
> > with v4.1-rc3, rebase my commits on top of that, and do another cycle
> > through -next.  If I don't hear otherwise, I will be lazy and send as is,
> > so if you would prefer something different, please let me know.
> 
> I think as-is would be better, to not create extra dependencies. I can resolve 
> conflicts in -tip.

Very good!  I expect to send the pull request tomorrow (Saturday)
Pacific time.

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/