Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rseq tree with Linus' tree

2017-11-16 Thread Mathieu Desnoyers
- On Nov 15, 2017, at 10:00 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com wrote: > - On Nov 15, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au > wrote: > >> Hi Ingo, >> >> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:07:12 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> >>> There's absolutely no way such inv

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rseq tree with Linus' tree

2017-11-15 Thread Mathieu Desnoyers
- On Nov 15, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > >> - On Nov 15, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> >> - On Nov 15, 2017, at 1

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rseq tree with Linus' tree

2017-11-15 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > - On Nov 15, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote: > > > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > >> - On Nov 15, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de > >> wrote: > >> > Can we please handle th

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rseq tree with Linus' tree

2017-11-15 Thread Mathieu Desnoyers
- On Nov 15, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> - On Nov 15, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote: >> > Can we please handle this as any other feature which is not ready before >> > the merg

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rseq tree with Linus' tree

2017-11-15 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > - On Nov 15, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote: > > Can we please handle this as any other feature which is not ready before > > the merge window and postpone the rseq stuff for 4.16? > > Linus showed interest in merging

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rseq tree with Linus' tree

2017-11-15 Thread Mathieu Desnoyers
- On Nov 15, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> - On Nov 15, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Ingo, >> > >> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:07:12 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rseq tree with Linus' tree

2017-11-15 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > - On Nov 15, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au > wrote: > > > Hi Ingo, > > > > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:07:12 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> > >> There's absolutely no way such invasive x86 changes should be done outside >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rseq tree with Linus' tree

2017-11-15 Thread Mathieu Desnoyers
- On Nov 15, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:07:12 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> There's absolutely no way such invasive x86 changes should be done outside >> the >> x86 >> tree and be merged into linux-next. >> >> linu

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rseq tree with Linus' tree

2017-11-15 Thread Mathieu Desnoyers
- On Nov 15, 2017, at 3:07 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote: > * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Hi Mathieu, >> >> [I may regret adding the rseq tree ...] >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the rseq tree got a conflict in: >> >> arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S >> >> between commits: >> >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rseq tree with Linus' tree

2017-11-15 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Ingo, On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:07:12 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > There's absolutely no way such invasive x86 changes should be done outside > the x86 > tree and be merged into linux-next. > > linux-next should be for the regular maintenance flow, for changes pushed by > maintainers and part

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rseq tree with Linus' tree

2017-11-15 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Mathieu, > > [I may regret adding the rseq tree ...] > > Today's linux-next merge of the rseq tree got a conflict in: > > arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S > > between commits: > > 9da78ba6b47b ("x86/entry/64: Remove the restore_c_regs_and_iret label") > 26c4ef9