Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen-tip tree with the tip tree

[Ingo Molnar]

* Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 29/03/17 05:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
> > 
> > between commits:
> > 
> >   6415813bae75 ("x86/cpu: Drop wp_works_ok member of struct cpuinfo_x86")
> >   69218e47994d ("x86: Remap GDT tables in the fixmap section")
> >   b23adb7d3f7d ("x86/xen/gdt: Use X86_FEATURE_XENPV instead of globals for the GDT fixup")
> > 
> > from the tip tree and commits:
> > 
> >   75cd32d6093e ("x86/xen: split off enlighten_pv.c")
> > 
> > from the xen-tip tree.
> > 
> > I dropped the xen-tip tree for today (see other conflict reports),
> > please get together and sort these out, thanks.
> > 
> 
> Hmm, seems to be a rather bad timing for the series of Vitaly.
> 
> What is the best way to resolve those conflicts? A rebase of Vitaly's
> patches seems to be required in any case.
> 
> Should I rebase the Xen tree on current tip? This seems to be rather
> easy, but I think this will work only if I can be sure the current tip
> tree contents will all be merged by Linus before the Xen tree.

That's certainly very likely, -tip trees all go in very early in the merge window.

> I could try to cherry pick the patches from tip where Vitaly's patches
> have conflicts with, but I think this could lead to a lot of patches
> to take.

Nor is it desirable as a workflow.

I'd suggest the following: in about a week I can guarantee a working tip:x86/mm 
base with most of the 5-level paging patches applied that you could base Xen 
patches on.

Unfortunately, right now there's at least one regression with those changes that 
needs to be properly fixed before it's a suitable base tree. The fix already 
exists, it just needs to be tested and the whole tree needs to cook for a few days 
to be dependable for Xen as a base.

> Or we could delay Vitaly's series until tip has been merged, but this
> will either delay some other Xen patches depending on (or conflicting
> with) Vitaly's patches or would make the rebase for Vitaly more
> difficult.

So my suggestion would be: could you delay 75cd32d6093e for a week, and then merge 
it on top of a pulled in tip:x86/mm? I'll send that tree to Linus on the first day 
of the merge window so there shouldn't be any ordering problems.

Thanks,

	Ingo