On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 12:45:03PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got conflicts in:
>
> kernel/sched/core.c
> include/linux/sched.h
>
> between commit:
>
> cfe43f478b79 ("preempt/dynamic: Introduce preemption model accessors")
>
> from the tip tree and commit:
>
> 42e3e3c6a774 ("EXP preempt/dynamic: Introduce preempt mode accessors")
>
> from the rcu tree.
>
> Well, this is just a pain. Paul, please don't put expierimental things
> in you linuc-nect included branch. I have dropped the rcu tree today.
Gah! Please accept my apologies for the hassle!
In the short term, I have reset rcu/next to the commit preceding
42e3e3c6a774 ("EXP preempt/dynamic: Introduce preempt mode accessors").
This could cause some trouble for a few corner-case -next users, but...
Longer term, this is excellent news, because it means that I can drop
that commit from my tree entirely and rebase my stack on top of the
version of that same commit that is just now in -tip.
> The rules I use for the linux-next tree are:
>
> "You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have
> been:
> * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's
> Signed-off-by,
> * posted to the relevant mailing list,
> * reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
> * successfully unit tested, and
> * destined for the current or next Linux merge window.
>
> Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him
> to fetch). It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary."
Understood, and thank you.
The next time that I am forced to choose between propagating a bug into
-next on the one hand and precisely following the above rules on the
other, I will consult with you beforehand. Please accept my apologies
for failing to have done so this time.
Thanx, Paul
