Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sat, 27 Jun 2015 14:35:56 +1000 | From | Stephen Rothwell <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] workqueue changes for v4.2-rc1 |
| |
Hi Linus,
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:18:10 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Ooh, it isn't in mainline yet but pulling rcu tree will cause a silent > > conflict with this pull request which leads to build failure. > > I tend to try to do a full "make allmodconfig" build between all pull > requests (although I can optimize that a bit for very targeted pull > requests), so hopefully I'll notice and remember your note. > > But just in case: > > > The two colliding commits are. > > > > 5b95e1af8d17 ("workqueue: wq_pool_mutex protects the attrs-installation") > > eeacf8982637 ("rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()") > > > > The former adds rcu_lockdep_assert() usage and the latter renames and > > flips it. It can be resolved by renaming and negating the conditions > > in the new usage. > > it would be great if when I get the RCU pull request that introduces > that renaming, whoever sends it to me could remind me about it.
I was wondering why I didn't see that in linux-next ... turns out I did, but that rcu commit vanished after June 23 ... I have no idea where it went, but it has not been in the last 3 -next releases.
If it turns up again, this is the merge fix patch I was using:
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:39:43 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: fix up for rcu_lockdep_assert() rename
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> --- kernel/workqueue.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c index 837427cc5bdf..44cd4144ebcb 100644 --- a/kernel/workqueue.c +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c @@ -348,10 +348,10 @@ static void workqueue_sysfs_unregister(struct workqueue_struct *wq); "sched RCU or wq->mutex should be held") #define assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex_or_pool_mutex(wq) \ - rcu_lockdep_assert(rcu_read_lock_sched_held() || \ - lockdep_is_held(&wq->mutex) || \ - lockdep_is_held(&wq_pool_mutex), \ - "sched RCU, wq->mutex or wq_pool_mutex should be held") + RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_sched_held() && \ + !lockdep_is_held(&wq->mutex) && \ + !lockdep_is_held(&wq_pool_mutex), \ + "sched RCU, wq->mutex or wq_pool_mutex should be held") #define for_each_cpu_worker_pool(pool, cpu) \ for ((pool) = &per_cpu(cpu_worker_pools, cpu)[0]; \ -- 2.1.4 -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
| |