From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754221AbdKAIzq (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2017 04:55:46 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:33366 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752093AbdKAIzo (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2017 04:55:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:55:24 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , David Miller , Networking , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Yonghong Song Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net-next tree Message-ID: <20171101085524.4dcxgaq7kawn37pq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20171101181554.1826e8c8@canb.auug.org.au> <20171101081832.zdehp7ysi5ecwsdv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20171101082742.dteg337holmodzn2@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171101082742.dteg337holmodzn2@gmail.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:27:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > > > > > > between commits: > > > > > > 97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers") > > > and more changes ... > > > > > > from the net-next tree and commit: > > > > > > 7d9285e82db5 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() interface, a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers"") > > > > > > from the tip tree. > > > > So those should be the exact same patch; except for Changelog and > > subject. Code wise there shouldn't be a conflict. > > So the problem is that then we have: > > 0d3d73aac2ff ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping") > > which changes the code. This is a known conflict generation pattern: Git isn't > smart enough to sort out that (probably because it would make merges too > expensive) - and it's a bad flow in any case. Hmm, I thought having that same base patch in both trees would allow it to resolve that conflict. A well..