[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200624040621.GC9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 21:06:21 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 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: 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 ("EXP sched: Alleged fix for v5.8 merge-window scheduler issue")
>
> from the rcu tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I used the version from the tip tree) and can carry the
> fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned,
> but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream
> maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want
> to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to
> minimise any particularly complex conflicts.
Gah. I will move my copy of this patch out of the rcu/next batch.
I included it so that I could find other bugs. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists