[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200523150614.GP2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 08:06:14 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
elver@...gle.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:54:26AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> writes:
>
> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 05:12:23PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> Marco, Thomas, is there any better setup I can provide Stephen? Or
> >> is the next-20200519 -rcu tree the best we have right now?
> >
> > I've queued the fixes yesterday into tip:locking/kcsan and tglx said
> > something about you having to rebase anyway. I guess you can find him on
> > IRC at some point later. :)
>
> locking/kcsan is not the problem (it just has more fixes on top)
>
> core/rcu is the one which diverged and caused the merge conflict with
> PPC to happen twice. So Paul needs to remove the stale core/rcu bits and
> rebase on the current version (which is not going to change again).
So there will be another noinstr-rcu-* tag, and I will rebase on top
of that, correct? If so, fair enough!
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists