[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQ+w_ww3ZR_bJVEU-PxWusT569y0biLNi=GZJNpKqFzNLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 13:00:04 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] x86: Rewrite the retpoline rewrite logic
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 11:45 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 11:26:57AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>
> > It's a merge conflict. The patchset failed to apply to both bpf and
> > bpf-next trees:
>
> Figures :/ I suspect it relies on tip/objtool/core at the very least and
> possibly some of the x86 trees as well.
>
> I can locally merge tip/master with bpf, but getting a CI to do that
> might be tricky.
We have an ability in CI to supply few additional patches on top bpf/bpf-next
trees, but that's usually done for the cases where we've merged a fix into
one tree, but it's needed in both while bpf->net->linus->net-next->bpf-next
circle is still pending.
Does tip/objtool/core dependency relevant for this set?
Can you rebase the current set on top of bpf-next and send it to the list
just to get CI to run it? We won't be merging it into bpf-next, of course.
I'm mainly interested in seeing all that additional tests passing that
we have in bpf-next.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists