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

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 12:45:03PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   kernel/sched/core.c
>   include/linux/sched.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   cfe43f478b79 ("preempt/dynamic: Introduce preemption model accessors")
> 
> from the tip tree and commit:
> 
>   42e3e3c6a774 ("EXP preempt/dynamic: Introduce preempt mode accessors")
> 
> from the rcu tree.
> 
> Well, this is just a pain.  Paul, please don't put expierimental things
> in you linuc-nect included branch.  I have dropped the rcu tree today.

Gah!  Please accept my apologies for the hassle!

In the short term, I have reset rcu/next to the commit preceding
42e3e3c6a774 ("EXP preempt/dynamic: Introduce preempt mode accessors").
This could cause some trouble for a few corner-case -next users, but...

Longer term, this is excellent news, because it means that I can drop
that commit from my tree entirely and rebase my stack on top of the
version of that same commit that is just now in -tip.

> The rules I use for the linux-next tree are:
> 
> "You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have
> been:
>      * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's
>         Signed-off-by,
>      * posted to the relevant mailing list,
>      * reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
>      * successfully unit tested, and 
>      * destined for the current or next Linux merge window.
> 
> Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him
> to fetch).  It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary."

Understood, and thank you.

The next time that I am forced to choose between propagating a bug into
-next on the one hand and precisely following the above rules on the
other, I will consult with you beforehand.  Please accept my apologies
for failing to have done so this time.

							Thanx, Paul