lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] ptrace: Cleanups for v5.18
    Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

    > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 4:56 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.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

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-03-29 05:39    [W:4.516 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site