Please can I have a stable KCSAN branch for 5.8?

Please can I have a stable KCSAN branch for 5.8?

[Will Deacon]

Hi TIP folks,

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

  * 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.

What's the best base for me to use?

Cheers,

Will

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200421151537.19241-1-will@kernel.org

Re: Please can I have a stable KCSAN branch for 5.8?

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:28:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi TIP folks,
> 
> 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.

>   * 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.

> What's the best base for me to use?

The -next tree has the latter, but not yet the former.

Hopefully we can get this straightened out, and please accept my apologies
for the hassle!

							Thanx, Paul

> Cheers,
> 
> Will
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200421151537.19241-1-will@kernel.org

Re: Please can I have a stable KCSAN branch for 5.8?

[Will Deacon]

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

Re: Please can I have a stable KCSAN branch for 5.8?

[Marco Elver]

On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> 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 ;)

Just confirming that I don't see any issues with the plan -- the
patches that Will needs are good to go into the v5.8 branch.

Thanks,
-- Marco

Re: Please can I have a stable KCSAN branch for 5.8?

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:26:56PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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 ;)
> 
> Just confirming that I don't see any issues with the plan -- the
> patches that Will needs are good to go into the v5.8 branch.

OK, I have updated -rcu's kcsan and kcsan-dev branches.  Could you please
double-check, given that pull-request time is quite soon?

							Thanx, Paul

Re: Please can I have a stable KCSAN branch for 5.8?

[Marco Elver]

On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 20:02, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:26:56PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 ;)
> >
> > Just confirming that I don't see any issues with the plan -- the
> > patches that Will needs are good to go into the v5.8 branch.
>
> OK, I have updated -rcu's kcsan and kcsan-dev branches.  Could you please
> double-check, given that pull-request time is quite soon?

I believe "objtool, kcsan: Add kcsan_disable_current() and
kcsan_enable_current_nowarn()" is missing, which should go after
"kcsan: Add __kcsan_{enable,disable}_current() variants".

Thanks,
-- Marco

Re: Please can I have a stable KCSAN branch for 5.8?

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 09:11:23PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 20:02, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:26:56PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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 ;)
> > >
> > > Just confirming that I don't see any issues with the plan -- the
> > > patches that Will needs are good to go into the v5.8 branch.
> >
> > OK, I have updated -rcu's kcsan and kcsan-dev branches.  Could you please
> > double-check, given that pull-request time is quite soon?
> 
> I believe "objtool, kcsan: Add kcsan_disable_current() and
> kcsan_enable_current_nowarn()" is missing, which should go after
> "kcsan: Add __kcsan_{enable,disable}_current() variants".

Thank you for checking!  I will move that one also.

							Thanx, Paul

Re: Please can I have a stable KCSAN branch for 5.8?

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:37:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 09:11:23PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 20:02, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:26:56PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 ;)
> > > >
> > > > Just confirming that I don't see any issues with the plan -- the
> > > > patches that Will needs are good to go into the v5.8 branch.
> > >
> > > OK, I have updated -rcu's kcsan and kcsan-dev branches.  Could you please
> > > double-check, given that pull-request time is quite soon?
> > 
> > I believe "objtool, kcsan: Add kcsan_disable_current() and
> > kcsan_enable_current_nowarn()" is missing, which should go after
> > "kcsan: Add __kcsan_{enable,disable}_current() variants".
> 
> Thank you for checking!  I will move that one also.

And it is moved.  FYI, I will likely be sending my KCSAN pull request
late tomorrow (Thursday) Pacific Time, a few days earlier than normal.

							Thanx, Paul

Re: Please can I have a stable KCSAN branch for 5.8?

[Marco Elver]

On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 23:47, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:37:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 09:11:23PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 20:02, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:26:56PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > Just confirming that I don't see any issues with the plan -- the
> > > > > patches that Will needs are good to go into the v5.8 branch.
> > > >
> > > > OK, I have updated -rcu's kcsan and kcsan-dev branches.  Could you please
> > > > double-check, given that pull-request time is quite soon?
> > >
> > > I believe "objtool, kcsan: Add kcsan_disable_current() and
> > > kcsan_enable_current_nowarn()" is missing, which should go after
> > > "kcsan: Add __kcsan_{enable,disable}_current() variants".
> >
> > Thank you for checking!  I will move that one also.
>
> And it is moved.  FYI, I will likely be sending my KCSAN pull request
> late tomorrow (Thursday) Pacific Time, a few days earlier than normal.

Looks good, thank you!

-- Marco

Re: Please can I have a stable KCSAN branch for 5.8?

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 11:34:55AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 23:47, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:37:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 09:11:23PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 20:02, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:26:56PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:41, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 ;)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just confirming that I don't see any issues with the plan -- the
> > > > > > patches that Will needs are good to go into the v5.8 branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, I have updated -rcu's kcsan and kcsan-dev branches.  Could you please
> > > > > double-check, given that pull-request time is quite soon?
> > > >
> > > > I believe "objtool, kcsan: Add kcsan_disable_current() and
> > > > kcsan_enable_current_nowarn()" is missing, which should go after
> > > > "kcsan: Add __kcsan_{enable,disable}_current() variants".
> > >
> > > Thank you for checking!  I will move that one also.
> >
> > And it is moved.  FYI, I will likely be sending my KCSAN pull request
> > late tomorrow (Thursday) Pacific Time, a few days earlier than normal.
> 
> Looks good, thank you!

And it did pass overnight testing, so looking good!  Next step is a
quick test without KCSAN enabled.

							Thanx, Paul