Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 May 2018 09:05:34 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: RCU branching for the v4.19 merge window |
| |
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:27:36AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:40:44 -0700 > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Hello, Steve! > > > > Another year, another difficult-to-branch set of RCU commits. > > > > In happy contrast to last year, I can make some branches (SRCU, some > > of the torture commits, and a few miscellaneous commits), but I will > > likely end up with several short branches and one huge one. My thought > > is to keep the long branch, but email the patches out in a few separate > > serieses, with each depending on its predecessor. For example, one series > > from the big branch would be folding the ->gpnum and ->completed fields > > into a single ->gp_seq, which helps the RCU-flavor consolidation task. > > Another series suppresses some rare false-positive splats that have been > > plaguing me for more than a year. Yet another series within this huge > > branch applies and optimizes funnel locking for grace-period startup. > > > > The problem is that the conversion to ->gp_seq has a very large footprint, > > which of course generates lots of conflicts. I could of course collapse > > these commits into a single commit, but if I did that I would also defer > > to the merge window following v4.19 due to the resulting loss of bisection > > within that change. > > > > Any advice? > > > > The commits are for-mingo..rcu/dev in my -rcu tree. > > I don't see these branches (and I don't pull tags).
You don't see them yet because I don't create them until after -rc1 time, which is a few weeks out. If you go far enough down from rcu/dev you will see branches (about 90 commits down from HEAD), but these branches are already in -tip for v4.18.
> How bad are the conflicts? Or is it too late to respond to help (sorry, > was on vacation :-)
The conflicts are already causing me substantial hassles when rebasing bug fixes back to the buggy commits, so the conflicts are non-trivial. Hence my reaching out to you, given your discomfort with last year's long-chain RCU submission.
And you do have some time to respond. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
| |