On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 11:45 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 12:08:42 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 01:29:41PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > The following commits are also in the mm tree as different commits
> > > (but the same patches):
> > >
> > > 96450ead1652 ("seqlock: add raw_seqcount_try_begin")
> > > eb449bd96954 ("mm: convert mm_lock_seq to a proper seqcount")
> > >
> > > These are commits
> > >
> > > 46dbe8ab1205 ("seqlock: add raw_seqcount_try_begin")
> > > 5f0d64389e1f ("mm: convert mm_lock_seq to a proper seqcount")
> > >
> > > from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree. The latter ones are already
> > > causing conflicts.
> >
> > Why is this in -mm ?
>
> Because
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241206225204.4008261-1-surenb@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
> needs it.
>
> > I agreed with Suren I'd take them through
> > tip/perf/core to go along with Andrii's uprobe patch that relies on
> > them.
Both trees now have changes depending on those patches. If we can't
have them in both trees then I can rework my last patchset in the mm
tree to use old seqcount code and not require those patches, but we
will have to deal with the merge conflicts later.
