On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 08:23:47PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vhost tree got conflicts in:
>
> arch/ia64/include/asm/barrier.h
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
> arch/s390/include/asm/barrier.h
> include/asm-generic/barrier.h
>
> between commit:
>
> d5a73cadf3fd ("lcoking/barriers, arch: Use smp barriers in smp_store_release()")
>
> from the tip tree and commit:
>
> 2683de3a1732 ("ia64: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h")
> d78113bef3e0 ("powerpc: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h")
> 25bc870c914b ("s390: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h")
> 24888a057e97 ("asm-generic: add __smp_XXX wrappers")
>
> from the vhost tree.
Thanks for letting me know.
I should probably cherry-pick d5a73cadf3fd - this will
make it appear twice in git history, but seems cleaner
than rebasing all of vhost on top of tip.
Is everyone fine with this?
Alternatively, I could submit the virt barriers + virtio patches for
inclusion in tip.
> I fixed it up (in each case taking the vhost tree version) and can
> carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
>
> However, given the ongoing review and discussion, I do wonder if these
> vhost tree commits should be in linux-next yet.
So far I got comments from David Miller about the API naming, and I'd
like to get more feedback - at least from Peter Zijlstra who gave me
the idea. Otherwise this seems rather like a safe bet, and
this kind of integration issue seems like exactly the kind of thing
linux-next helps figure out.
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
