[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871rh2k5jq.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 14:45:13 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the block tree
On Mon, Nov 09 2020 at 14:14, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> include/linux/sched/signal.h
> include/linux/tracehook.h
> kernel/signal.c
> kernel/task_work.c
>
> between commits:
>
> fdb5f027ce66 ("task_work: use TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL if available")
> bf6996650675 ("task_work: remove legacy TWA_SIGNAL path")
> ceb39b7c17b7 ("kernel: remove checking for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL")
>
> from the block tree and commit:
>
> 114518eb6430 ("task_work: Use TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL if available")
> 12db8b690010 ("entry: Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL")
>
> from the tip tree.
Jens, how is that supposed to work?
You need to merge the 'core-entry-notify-signal' tag from the tip tree
into your next branch to make the follow up changes actually work.
Ideally you send the whole arch + core cleanup muck my way once the
architecture people are happy.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists