From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751547AbeEVP1k (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2018 11:27:40 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:37914 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751199AbeEVP1i (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2018 11:27:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 11:27:36 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RCU branching for the v4.19 merge window Message-ID: <20180522112736.4b44ae3c@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20180517144044.GA6089@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20180517144044.GA6089@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:40:44 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > Hello, Steve! > > Another year, another difficult-to-branch set of RCU commits. > > In happy contrast to last year, I can make some branches (SRCU, some > of the torture commits, and a few miscellaneous commits), but I will > likely end up with several short branches and one huge one. My thought > is to keep the long branch, but email the patches out in a few separate > serieses, with each depending on its predecessor. For example, one series > from the big branch would be folding the ->gpnum and ->completed fields > into a single ->gp_seq, which helps the RCU-flavor consolidation task. > Another series suppresses some rare false-positive splats that have been > plaguing me for more than a year. Yet another series within this huge > branch applies and optimizes funnel locking for grace-period startup. > > The problem is that the conversion to ->gp_seq has a very large footprint, > which of course generates lots of conflicts. I could of course collapse > these commits into a single commit, but if I did that I would also defer > to the merge window following v4.19 due to the resulting loss of bisection > within that change. > > Any advice? > > The commits are for-mingo..rcu/dev in my -rcu tree. I don't see these branches (and I don't pull tags). How bad are the conflicts? Or is it too late to respond to help (sorry, was on vacation :-) -- Steve