Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:

  kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c

between commit:

  09661f75e75c ("ring-buffer: Fix reader locking when changing the sub buffer order")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  1f1c2bc9d075 ("ring-buffer: Limit time with disabled interrupts in rb_check_pages()")

from the ftrace tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
index 3ea4f7bb1837,696d422d5b35..000000000000
--- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
@@@ -6757,9 -6800,14 +6803,10 @@@ int ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set(struc
  						     struct buffer_page, list);
  		list_del_init(&cpu_buffer->reader_page->list);
  
 -		/* The cpu_buffer pages are a link list with no head */
 +		/* Install the new pages, remove the head from the list */
  		cpu_buffer->pages = cpu_buffer->new_pages.next;
 -		cpu_buffer->new_pages.next->prev = cpu_buffer->new_pages.prev;
 -		cpu_buffer->new_pages.prev->next = cpu_buffer->new_pages.next;
+ 		cpu_buffer->cnt++;
 -
 -		/* Clear the new_pages list */
 -		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cpu_buffer->new_pages);
 +		list_del_init(&cpu_buffer->new_pages);
  
  		cpu_buffer->head_page
  			= list_entry(cpu_buffer->pages, struct buffer_page, list);

On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 13:26:36 +1100
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   09661f75e75c ("ring-buffer: Fix reader locking when changing the sub buffer order")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   1f1c2bc9d075 ("ring-buffer: Limit time with disabled interrupts in rb_check_pages()")
> 
> from the ftrace tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 

Thanks, but I screwed up my ring-buffer branch. I have a new one
tested, and I'll be rebasing it today.

-- Steve