[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200525161342.GY2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 09:13:42 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:20:29AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 02:37, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 02:23:45PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:05:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> writes:
> > > > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:54:26AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > >> 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!
> > > >
> > > > Here you go: noinstr-rcu-220-05-23
> > > >
> > > > I wanted this to be 2020 and not 220 but I noticed after pushing it
> > > > out. I guess it still does the job :)
> > >
> > > Now -that- is what I call an old-school tag name!!! ;-)
> > >
> > > I remerged, rebased, and pushed to -rcu branch "dev".
> > >
> > > If it survives testing, I will reset -rcu branch "rcu/next" as well.
> >
> > And passed! The compile times are back to their old selves on my
> > laptop as well.
> >
> > Thank you for setting this up, Thomas!!!
>
> I just noticed that -rcu and -tip both still have their own version of
> "ubsan, kcsan: Don't combine sanitizer with kcov on clang". For there
> to not be any conflicts in -next, "ubsan, kcsan: Don't combine
> sanitizer with kcov on clang" could be dropped from -rcu.
Thank you for spotting this! Yes, if it is already in -tip, I should
drop it. If this causes trouble for clang users working with -rcu, I
can always pull in the exact commit used in -tip.
Anyway, -rcu branch "dev" no longer contains this commit.
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists