On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 02:51:24PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Tue, 19 May 2020 17:23:16 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 116ac378bb3f ("powerpc/64s: machine check interrupt update NMI accounting")
> >
> > from the powerpc tree and commit:
> >
> > 187416eeb388 ("hardirq/nmi: Allow nested nmi_enter()")
> >
> > from the rcu tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I used the powerpc tree version for now) and can carry the
> > fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned,
> > but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream
> > maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want
> > to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to
> > minimise any particularly complex conflicts.
>
> This is now a conflict between the powerpc commit and commit
>
> 69ea03b56ed2 ("hardirq/nmi: Allow nested nmi_enter()")
>
> from the tip tree. I assume that the rcu and tip trees are sharing
> some patches (but not commits) :-(
We are sharing commits, and in fact 187416eeb388 in the rcu tree came
from the tip tree. My guess is version skew, and that I probably have
another rebase coming up.
Why is this happening? There are sets of conflicting commits in different
efforts, and we are trying to resolve them. But we are getting feedback
on some of those commits, which is probably what is causing the skew.
Thanx, Paul
