On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 01:50:46PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 2019-11-18 15:08:58 [+1100], Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the workqueues tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > kernel/workqueue.c
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > > 5a6446626d7e ("workqueue: Convert for_each_wq to use built-in list check")
> > >
> > > from the tip tree and commit:
> > >
> > > 49e9d1a9faf2 ("workqueue: Add RCU annotation for pwq list walk")
> > >
> > > from the workqueues tree.
> >
> > urgh. So the RCU warning is introduced in commit
> > 28875945ba98d ("rcu: Add support for consolidated-RCU reader checking")
> >
> > which was merged in v5.4-rc1. I enabled it around -rc7 and saw a few
> > warnings including in the workqueue code. I asked about this and posted
> > later a patch which was applied by Tejun. Now I see that the tip tree
> > has a patch for this warning…
> > I would vote for the patch in -tip since it also removes the
> > assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex() macro.
> > It would be nice if this could be part of v5.4 since once the RCU
> > warning is enabled it will yell.
>
> So 5a6446626d7e is currently queued up for v5.5 as part of the RCU tree.
>
> I can cherry pick 5a6446626d7e into tip:core/urgent if Paul and Tejun
> agree.
No objections here.
Thanx, Paul
