Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 May 2017 13:51:09 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC GIT PULL, v2] RCU changes for v4.12 |
| |
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 01:17:54PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > I am testing a merge with current linus/master, and I looked through > > the commits in -next selected by: > > > > gitk v4.11.. --no-merges --all-match --grep=drm --grep=selftest > > > > I didn't find anything obvious. If the tests complete successfully, > > I will try running the DRM selftest. > > The drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/mock_gem_device.c had a new use of > SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, which obviously conflicted with the rename to > SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU. > > It doesn't show up as a merge-time code conflict, only as a build-time > failure. It's why I do allmodconfig builds after every pull. That > doesn't catch everything (I only do it for x86-64, for example), but > it catches a lot. > > And no, it's not a problem. These things happen, and it's literally my > job to make sure my merges work out. > > I don't actually expect submaintainers to figure things like that out, > although this *did* show up in linux-next, and it's a bit > disappointing how that information got lost somewhere on the way. > > It kind of implies that the prep work that linux-next does doesn't get > fully used.
I did see that from linux-next. For future reference, what should I have done with it? Added it to my pull request or to the commit log of my merge commit?
> Normally I wouldn't even have mentioned it, if it wasn't for the fact > that I got a 300kB data dump in my mailbox, and that huge amount of > data wasn't actually even very relevant.
Well, my testing did find a lockdep splat, so the effort was not wasted. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
| |