Message-ID: <87r16lmnsq.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Date:   Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:37:41 -0500
From:   "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>, Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ptrace: Cleanups for v5.18

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 4:56 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>>
>> The removal of tracehook.h is quite significant as it has been a major
>> source of confusion in recent years.  Much of that confusion was
>> around task_work and TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL (which I have now decoupled
>> making the semantics clearer).
>
> Hmm. I love removing tracehook.c, but this looks like it hasn't been
> in linux-next.
>
> The header file changes messes with other changes, and we have
>
>   kernel/sched/fair.c:2884:9: error: implicit declaration of function
> ‘init_task_work’; did you mean ‘init_irq_work’?
> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>    2884 |         init_task_work(&p->numa_work, task_numa_work);
>         |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> as a result (also a few other things in that same file).
>
> Now, this is trivial to fix - just add an include for
> <linux/task_work.h> from that file - and that's the right thing to do
> anyway.
>
> But I'm a bit unhappy that this was either not tested in linux-next,
> or if it was, I wasn't notified about the semantic in the pull
> request.
>
> So I've pulled this, and fixed up things in my merge, but I'm a bit
> worried that there might be other situations like this where some
> header file is no longer included and it was included implicitly
> before through that disgusting tracehook.h header..
>
> I *hope* it was just the scheduler header file updates that ended up
> having this effect, and nothing else is affected.
>
> Let's see if the test robots start complaining about non-x86
> architecture-specific stuff that I don't build test.

Sorry for not mentioning that.  I had tracked it down.  It was
fundamentally in the scheduler headers changes removing an include of
task_work.h, so it didn't feel like there was anything I could do in my
tree.  I asked Ingo if he could fix his tree and unfortunately forgot
about it.

For the record there were also a couple of other pretty trivial
conflicts, the removal of nds32, some block_cgroup header where
an adjacent line was modified to what I was changing.  But it thankfully
looks like none of those caused you any problems.

Sorry about all of that I am about that.  I am running pretty weak this
last couple of days as a cold has been running through the household.


Dumb question because this seems to burning a few extra creativity
points.  Is there any way to create a signed tag and a branch with the
same name?  Or in general is there a good way to manage topic branches
and then tag them at the end before I send them?

Having a tag and a branch with the same name seems to completely confuse
git and it just tells me no I won't push anything to another git tree,
because what you are asking me to do is ambiguous.  So now I am having
to come up with two names for each topic branch, even if I only push the
tags upstream.

I feel like there is a best practice on how to manage tags and topic
branches and I just haven't seen it yet.

Eric

Powered by blists - more mailing lists