linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-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: <CAADnVQ++ULXeQQ=oLTXvoo98QSrk-afc=H5Lq9Pm_LyH3X=sCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 10:55:26 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, 
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Jiawei Zhao <phoenix500526@....com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, 
	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 tip tree with the bpf-next tree

On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 7:41 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/usdt.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   69424097ee10 ("selftests/bpf: Enrich subtest_basic_usdt case in selftests to cover SIB handling logic")
>
> from the bpf-next tree and commit:
>
>   875e1705ad99 ("selftests/bpf: Add optimized usdt variant for basic usdt test")
>
> 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 headsup. Looks good.