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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171101085524.4dcxgaq7kawn37pq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:55:24 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net-next tree

On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:27:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > 
> > > between commits:
> > > 
> > >   97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers")
> > > and more changes ...
> > > 
> > > from the net-next tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   7d9285e82db5 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() interface, a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers"")
> > > 
> > > from the tip tree.
> > 
> > So those should be the exact same patch; except for Changelog and
> > subject. Code wise there shouldn't be a conflict.
> 
> So the problem is that then we have:
> 
>   0d3d73aac2ff ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping")
> 
> which changes the code. This is a known conflict generation pattern: Git isn't 
> smart enough to sort out that (probably because it would make merges too 
> expensive) - and it's a bad flow in any case.

Hmm, I thought having that same base patch in both trees would allow it
to resolve that conflict. A well..