linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the block tree

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]

Message-ID: <20210212152440.GD94816@lothringen>
Date:   Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:24:40 +0100
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the block tree

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 09:38:02AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 04:48:52PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got conflicts in:
> > 
> >   include/linux/rcupdate.h
> >   kernel/rcu/tree.c
> >   kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > 
> > between commits:
> > 
> >   3a7b5c87a0b2 ("rcu/nocb: Perform deferred wake up before last idle's need_resched() check")
> >   e4234f21d2ea ("rcu: Pull deferred rcuog wake up to rcu_eqs_enter() callers")
> >   14bbd41d5109 ("entry/kvm: Explicitly flush pending rcuog wakeup before last rescheduling point")
> 
> Frederic had me move these out of the section of the -rcu commits for
> the v5.12 merge window, saying that they were not yet ready.

Actually those are the latest series applied in tip:sched/core

> 
> Jens, are these needed to prevent failures in the block tree?  If so,
> there were some commits added late in v5.11 that might also get rid
> of your failures.  If those v5.11 commits don't help the block tree,
> let's figure out what we need to do here...  ;-)

I'm surprised those are in the block tree. Perhaps some commits there
depend on sched/core

Thanks!