linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the bpf 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: <CAADnVQJhh+An8uorGh-WQfJybqAu84MOREXZtCxep7fZtyMd6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:33:11 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, 
	Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the bpf tree

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 9:07 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>   kernel/bpf/btf.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   5da7e15fb5a1 ("net: Add rx_skb of kfree_skb to raw_tp_null_args[].")
>
> from the bpf tree and commit:
>
>   c83e2d970bae ("bpf: Add tracepoints with null-able arguments")
>
> from the bpf-next 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 headsup.

Jiri,
what should we do ?
I feel that moving c83e2d970bae into bpf tree would be the best ?

Pls warn me next time of conflicts.