netdev - 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: <Z68JEhkMs9rjgVHP@krava>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 10:12:50 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...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 09:33:11PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> 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 ?

right, bpf tree would have been better fit for that.. should I resend that for bpf tree?

> 
> Pls warn me next time of conflicts.

will do

jirka