Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Apr 2022 09:28:21 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree |
| |
On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 12:45:03PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got conflicts in: > > kernel/sched/core.c > include/linux/sched.h > > between commit: > > cfe43f478b79 ("preempt/dynamic: Introduce preemption model accessors") > > from the tip tree and commit: > > 42e3e3c6a774 ("EXP preempt/dynamic: Introduce preempt mode accessors") > > from the rcu tree. > > Well, this is just a pain. Paul, please don't put expierimental things > in you linuc-nect included branch. I have dropped the rcu tree today.
Gah! Please accept my apologies for the hassle!
In the short term, I have reset rcu/next to the commit preceding 42e3e3c6a774 ("EXP preempt/dynamic: Introduce preempt mode accessors"). This could cause some trouble for a few corner-case -next users, but...
Longer term, this is excellent news, because it means that I can drop that commit from my tree entirely and rebase my stack on top of the version of that same commit that is just now in -tip.
> The rules I use for the linux-next tree are: > > "You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have > been: > * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's > Signed-off-by, > * posted to the relevant mailing list, > * reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree), > * successfully unit tested, and > * destined for the current or next Linux merge window. > > Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him > to fetch). It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary."
Understood, and thank you.
The next time that I am forced to choose between propagating a bug into -next on the one hand and precisely following the above rules on the other, I will consult with you beforehand. Please accept my apologies for failing to have done so this time.
Thanx, Paul
| |