From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753214AbbF0EgG (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jun 2015 00:36:06 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:43514 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752635AbbF0Ef7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jun 2015 00:35:59 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 14:35:56 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Tejun Heo , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Lai Jiangshan , "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] workqueue changes for v4.2-rc1 Message-ID: <20150627143556.6f97fe9e@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: References: <20150626153552.GF15805@mtj.duckdns.org> <20150626160152.GH15805@mtj.duckdns.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.28; i586-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 Hi Linus, On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:18:10 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > Ooh, it isn't in mainline yet but pulling rcu tree will cause a silent > > conflict with this pull request which leads to build failure. > > I tend to try to do a full "make allmodconfig" build between all pull > requests (although I can optimize that a bit for very targeted pull > requests), so hopefully I'll notice and remember your note. > > But just in case: > > > The two colliding commits are. > > > > 5b95e1af8d17 ("workqueue: wq_pool_mutex protects the attrs-installation") > > eeacf8982637 ("rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()") > > > > The former adds rcu_lockdep_assert() usage and the latter renames and > > flips it. It can be resolved by renaming and negating the conditions > > in the new usage. > > it would be great if when I get the RCU pull request that introduces > that renaming, whoever sends it to me could remind me about it. I was wondering why I didn't see that in linux-next ... turns out I did, but that rcu commit vanished after June 23 ... I have no idea where it went, but it has not been in the last 3 -next releases. If it turns up again, this is the merge fix patch I was using: From: Stephen Rothwell Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:39:43 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: fix up for rcu_lockdep_assert() rename Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell --- kernel/workqueue.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c index 837427cc5bdf..44cd4144ebcb 100644 --- a/kernel/workqueue.c +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c @@ -348,10 +348,10 @@ static void workqueue_sysfs_unregister(struct workqueue_struct *wq); "sched RCU or wq->mutex should be held") #define assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex_or_pool_mutex(wq) \ - rcu_lockdep_assert(rcu_read_lock_sched_held() || \ - lockdep_is_held(&wq->mutex) || \ - lockdep_is_held(&wq_pool_mutex), \ - "sched RCU, wq->mutex or wq_pool_mutex should be held") + RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_sched_held() && \ + !lockdep_is_held(&wq->mutex) && \ + !lockdep_is_held(&wq_pool_mutex), \ + "sched RCU, wq->mutex or wq_pool_mutex should be held") #define for_each_cpu_worker_pool(pool, cpu) \ for ((pool) = &per_cpu(cpu_worker_pools, cpu)[0]; \ -- 2.1.4 -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au