linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the perf 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 28 Jun 2023 11:22:04 -0700
From:   Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the perf tree

Hello,

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 6:37 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Tue, 16 May 2023 10:34:13 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got conflicts in:
> >
> >   tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h
> >   tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/arch-tests.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   ae4aa00a1a93 ("perf test: Move x86 hybrid tests to arch/x86")
> >
> > from the perf tree and commit:
> >
> >   78075d947534 ("perf test: Add selftest to test IBS invocation via core pmu events")
> >
> > from the tip 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 for the email and the resolution.  Looks ok to me.
I'll note this in my pull request.


> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> >
> > diff --cc tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h
> > index 33d39c1d3e64,93d3b8877baa..000000000000
> > --- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h
> > +++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h
> > @@@ -11,7 -11,7 +11,8 @@@ int test__intel_pt_pkt_decoder(struct t
> >   int test__intel_pt_hybrid_compat(struct test_suite *test, int subtest);
> >   int test__bp_modify(struct test_suite *test, int subtest);
> >   int test__x86_sample_parsing(struct test_suite *test, int subtest);
> >  +int test__hybrid(struct test_suite *test, int subtest);
> > + int test__amd_ibs_via_core_pmu(struct test_suite *test, int subtest);
> >
> >   extern struct test_suite *arch_tests[];
> >
> > diff --cc tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/arch-tests.c
> > index 147ad0638bbb,b5c85ab8d92e..000000000000
> > --- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/arch-tests.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/arch-tests.c
> > @@@ -22,15 -22,7 +22,16 @@@ struct test_suite suite__intel_pt =
> >   DEFINE_SUITE("x86 bp modify", bp_modify);
> >   #endif
> >   DEFINE_SUITE("x86 Sample parsing", x86_sample_parsing);
> >  +static struct test_case hybrid_tests[] = {
> >  +    TEST_CASE_REASON("x86 hybrid event parsing", hybrid, "not hybrid"),
> >  +    { .name = NULL, }
> >  +};
> >  +
> >  +struct test_suite suite__hybrid = {
> >  +    .desc = "x86 hybrid",
> >  +    .test_cases = hybrid_tests,
> >  +};
> > + DEFINE_SUITE("AMD IBS via core pmu", amd_ibs_via_core_pmu);
> >
> >   struct test_suite *arch_tests[] = {
> >   #ifdef HAVE_DWARF_UNWIND_SUPPORT
> > @@@ -44,6 -36,6 +45,7 @@@
> >       &suite__bp_modify,
> >   #endif
> >       &suite__x86_sample_parsing,
> >  +    &suite__hybrid,
> > +     &suite__amd_ibs_via_core_pmu,
> >       NULL,
> >   };
>
> This is now a conflict between the perf tree and Linus' tree.

Yep, thanks!

Namhyung