Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 17 Aug 2019 14:45:06 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] rcu/tree: Add basic support for kfree_rcu() batching |
| |
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 01:53:29AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:20:23PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 12:30:24AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 08:56:37PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 09:32:23PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:16 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello, Joel, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I reworked the commit log as follows, but was then unsuccessful in > > > > > > > > working out which -rcu commit to apply it to. Could you please > > > > > > > > tell me what commit to apply this to? (Once applied, git cherry-pick > > > > > > > > is usually pretty good about handling minor conflicts.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was originally based on v5.3-rc2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was able to apply it just now to the rcu -dev branch and I pushed it here: > > > > > > > https://github.com/joelagnel/linux-kernel.git (branch paul-dev) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me know if any other issues, thanks for the change log rework! > > > > > > > > > > > > Pulled and cherry-picked, thank you! > > > > > > > > > > > > Just for grins, I also pushed out a from-joel.2019.08.16a showing the > > > > > > results of the pull. If you pull that branch, then run something like > > > > > > "gitk v5.3-rc2..", and then do the same with branch "dev", comparing the > > > > > > two might illustrate some of the reasons for the current restrictions > > > > > > on pull requests and trees subject to rebase. > > > > > > > > > > Right, I did the compare and see what you mean. I guess sending any > > > > > future pull requests against Linux -next would be the best option? > > > > > > > > Hmmm... You really want to send some pull requests, don't you? ;-) > > > > > > I would be lying if I said I don't have the itch to ;-) > > > > > > > Suppose you had sent that pull request against Linux -next or v5.2 > > > > or wherever. What would happen next, given the high probability of a > > > > conflict with someone else's patch? What would the result look like? > > > > > > One hopes that the tools are able to automatically resolve the resolution, > > > however adequate re-inspection of the resulting code and testing it would be > > > needed in either case, to ensure the conflict resolution (whether manual or > > > automatic) happened correctly. > > > > I didn't ask you to hope. I instead asked you what tell me what would > > actually happen. ;-) > > > > You could actually try this by randomly grouping the patches in -rcu > > (say, placing every third patch into one of three groups), generating > > separate pull requests, and then merging the pull requests together. > > Then you wouldn't have to hope. You could instead look at it in (say) > > gitk after the pieces were put together. > > So you take whatever is worked on in 'dev' and create separate branches out > of them, then merge them together later? > > I have seen you doing these tricks and would love to get ideas from your > experiences on these.
If the release dates line up, perhaps I can demo it for v5.4 at LPC.
> > > IIUC, this usually depends on the maintainer's preference on which branch to > > > send patches against. > > > > > > Are you saying -rcu's dev branch is still the best option to send patches > > > against, even though it is rebased often? > > > > Sounds like we might need to discuss this face to face. > > Yes, let us talk for sure at plumbers, thank you so much! > > (Also I sent a patch just now to fix that xchg() issue).
Yes, I just now squashed it in, thank you!
Thanx, Paul
| |