[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <791e9e85-411e-385b-302f-4a4224f76286@iogearbox.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 01:48:57 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the bpf tree
On 02/20/2019 01:41 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:37 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> f6be4d16039b ("selftests/bpf: make sure signal interrupts BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN")
>
> Ouch. Thanks for the heads up.
>
> Daniel,
> should we drop this one from bpf tree ?
> I don't think it's strictly necessary.
Yeah no objections, lets move the selftest one over to bpf-next and
have it properly integrated. I think test_progs might potentially need
further topic-split aside from kernel progs like we did in test_verifier.
>> from the bpf tree and commits:
>>
>> bf0f0fd93945 ("selftests/bpf: add simple BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN examples for flow dissector")
>> ab963beb9f5d ("selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock C test")
>> ba72a7b4badb ("selftests/bpf: test for BPF_F_LOCK")
Powered by blists - more mailing lists