On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:20:00AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:44:10 PDT (-0700), paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 12:32:47PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > arch/riscv/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
> > >
> > > between commits:
> > >
> > > 07a0a41cb77d ("riscv/cmpxchg: Deduplicate cmpxchg() asm and macros")
> > > 54280ca64626 ("riscv/cmpxchg: Implement cmpxchg for variables of size 1 and 2")
> > >
> > > from the risc-v tree and commit:
> > >
> > > b5e49f1af563 ("riscv: Emulate one-byte cmpxchg")
> > >
> > > from the rcu tree.
> > >
> > > I fixed it up (I just used the former as the latter seems to no longer be
> > > needed - I also undid the change to arch/riscv/Kconfig from the latter)
> > > 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.
> >
> > Agreed, it looks to me like I should drop my RISC-V change in favor of
> > the native support. Please let me know if I am mistaken.
> >
> > If I do not hear otherwise, I will pull my commit out of -next in favor
> > of those two on my next rebase.
>
> Sorry I forgot to send the shared tag. We can pre-merge if you want, I'm
> fine either way just let me know.
Not a problem! I will just keep it in -rcu for my testing, but such
that it does not go to -next.
Thanx, Paul
