On 29/03/17 10:59, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 29/03/17 05:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>> arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
>>>
>>> between commits:
>>>
>>> 6415813bae75 ("x86/cpu: Drop wp_works_ok member of struct cpuinfo_x86")
>>> 69218e47994d ("x86: Remap GDT tables in the fixmap section")
>>> b23adb7d3f7d ("x86/xen/gdt: Use X86_FEATURE_XENPV instead of globals for the GDT fixup")
>>>
>>> from the tip tree and commits:
>>>
>>> 75cd32d6093e ("x86/xen: split off enlighten_pv.c")
>>>
>>> from the xen-tip tree.
>>>
>>> I dropped the xen-tip tree for today (see other conflict reports),
>>> please get together and sort these out, thanks.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, seems to be a rather bad timing for the series of Vitaly.
>>
>> What is the best way to resolve those conflicts? A rebase of Vitaly's
>> patches seems to be required in any case.
>>
>> Should I rebase the Xen tree on current tip? This seems to be rather
>> easy, but I think this will work only if I can be sure the current tip
>> tree contents will all be merged by Linus before the Xen tree.
>
> That's certainly very likely, -tip trees all go in very early in the merge window.
>
>> I could try to cherry pick the patches from tip where Vitaly's patches
>> have conflicts with, but I think this could lead to a lot of patches
>> to take.
>
> Nor is it desirable as a workflow.
>
> I'd suggest the following: in about a week I can guarantee a working tip:x86/mm
> base with most of the 5-level paging patches applied that you could base Xen
> patches on.
>
> Unfortunately, right now there's at least one regression with those changes that
> needs to be properly fixed before it's a suitable base tree. The fix already
> exists, it just needs to be tested and the whole tree needs to cook for a few days
> to be dependable for Xen as a base.
>
>> Or we could delay Vitaly's series until tip has been merged, but this
>> will either delay some other Xen patches depending on (or conflicting
>> with) Vitaly's patches or would make the rebase for Vitaly more
>> difficult.
>
> So my suggestion would be: could you delay 75cd32d6093e for a week, and then merge
> it on top of a pulled in tip:x86/mm? I'll send that tree to Linus on the first day
> of the merge window so there shouldn't be any ordering problems.
Okay, that's rather easy to do.
Boris, I renamed the current Xen for-linus-4.12 branch for easy
development of other Xen patches to for-linus-4.12-pre.
I'll create another branch for-linus-4.12 based on the tip tree next
week which will be subject to the pull request for Linus. As soon as
for-linus-4.12 is ready the for-linus-4.12-pre branch shouldn't be used
any longer.
Juergen
--
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
