Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:07:25 +0100 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: [rcu:rcu/next 30/45] include/linux/compiler.h:343:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'smp_read_barrier_depends' |
| |
Hi Paul [adding Mark],
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:44:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Good point -- I should have removed that as soon as you posted the > update. I have removed it now.
Thanks!
> I am happy to take the patches, but let's make sure that I am up to > speed on the current state and dependencies. Here is my current > scorecard, please double-check: > > 1. Your patcheset from October 12th for nuking lockless_dereference(): > lkml.kernel.org/r/1507818377-7546-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com
Yes, that's correct -- those three patches are up-to-date.
> 2. Mark Rutland's prepatory patchset for nuking ACCESS_ONCE(): > -rcu, v4.14-rc4..251e52a951b0 ("rcutorture: formal: prepare for > ACCESS_ONCE() removal"). Depends on #1.
I don't think there's a dependency on #1 here, for the difference it makes. Mark has also updated his series on this branch (Acks and fixes), so you should pull this instead of picking patches:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git access-once-prep
> 3. My mop-up patchset for two remaining occurrences of > ACCESS_ONCE() in documentation and a comment. No real urgency > or dependencies here. -rcu, 11721220e6bf ("treewide: Kill off > remaining ACCESS_ONCE()". > > 4. Mark's scripted patchset for nuking ACCESS_ONCE(), which will > be run my Linus, hopefully at the end of the merge window that > takes #1 and #2.
Just FYI, but Mark has also put #3 and #4 on this branch:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git access-once
but those two patches haven't changed since the list posting.
> 5. My patchset for removing most smp_read_barrier_depends() > instances. -rcu, 11721220e6bf..b7a74661caeb ("keyring: Remove > now-redundant smp_read_barrier_depends()"). These depend on > #1, and many of them are non-trivial, so they will likely > straggle in over time as they accumulate sufficient testing > and/or acks. Three of them are ready to go in. > > 6. Removing smp_read_barrier_depends() from the InfiniBand drivers. > These use cases are a bit obscure, so may take some time. > Andrea Parri kindly volunteered to chase these down, but could > use responses to his queries to the InfiniBand maintainers. > These will likely depend on #1, though as Peter Zijlstra pointed > out, there is no record of any Alpha systems using InfiniBand, > so maybe they can be treated independently. > > Did I get that right? If I have the wrong patches or am missing some > dependencies, please let me know. Otherwise, I will create a branch > including available patches from 1-3 and 5 above. > > Are people comfortable with my pushing the straightforward stuff > (that is, excluding #5 and #6) into the next merge window?
That works for me, and you can have my Ack if you need it:
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Will
| |