On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 02:37, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 02:23:45PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:05:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:54:26AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > >> core/rcu is the one which diverged and caused the merge conflict with > > > >> PPC to happen twice. So Paul needs to remove the stale core/rcu bits and > > > >> rebase on the current version (which is not going to change again). > > > > > > > > So there will be another noinstr-rcu-* tag, and I will rebase on top > > > > of that, correct? If so, fair enough! > > > > > > Here you go: noinstr-rcu-220-05-23 > > > > > > I wanted this to be 2020 and not 220 but I noticed after pushing it > > > out. I guess it still does the job :) > > > > Now -that- is what I call an old-school tag name!!! ;-) > > > > I remerged, rebased, and pushed to -rcu branch "dev". > > > > If it survives testing, I will reset -rcu branch "rcu/next" as well. > > And passed! The compile times are back to their old selves on my > laptop as well. > > Thank you for setting this up, Thomas!!! I just noticed that -rcu and -tip both still have their own version of "ubsan, kcsan: Don't combine sanitizer with kcov on clang". For there to not be any conflicts in -next, "ubsan, kcsan: Don't combine sanitizer with kcov on clang" could be dropped from -rcu. Thanks, -- Marco
