Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 May 2020 15:41:41 +0100 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: Please can I have a stable KCSAN branch for 5.8? |
| |
Hi Paul,
Cheers for the quick reply!
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 07:36:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:28:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > I'm looking to rebase my READ_ONCE() series [1] on top of the KCSAN patches > > so that we can get them in for 5.8. However, tip/locking/kcsan seems to be > > missing some bits: > > > > * An update to checkpatch.pl to warn about missing comments for > > data_race(): > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200401101714.44781-1-elver@google.com > > For some reason, I thought this was going up some other tree, but I do > not see it in -next. So unless I hear otherwise, I will pull it into > the v5.8 kcsan branch.
Brill, thanks.
> > * I'm unable to apply these two patches from Marco that are needed for > > my READ_ONCE() work: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200424154730.190041-1-elver@google.com/ > > > > I think these depend on stuff that has been queued by Paul, and appears > > in linux-next, but to be honest with you I'm quite confused about what > > is queued for 5.8 and what isn't. > > This one is queued, but I currently have it in the v5.9 pile (but > tentatively for v5.8). Unless Marco tells me otherwise, I will move it > to the v5.8 branch, which will be part of my pull request next week.
Great, then this would all show up on tip/locking/kscan, right?
> > What's the best base for me to use? > > The -next tree has the latter, but not yet the former.
That probably means -next is good enough for me to cook a new version of my series, and then I can make a proper branch next week.
> Hopefully we can get this straightened out, and please accept my apologies > for the hassle!
No need to apologise, I just couldn't figure out what was what and decided it was easier to ask the experts ;)
Cheers again,
Will
| |