From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Song Liu Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the bpf tree Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 04:40:20 +0000 Message-ID: <0942C278-336F-4795-BE63-FAD7FBAA231B@fb.com> References: <20180502120921.654cc338@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180502120921.654cc338@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Daniel Borkmann , Alexei Starovoitov , Networking , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Yonghong Song List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org > On May 1, 2018, at 7:09 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote= : >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in: >=20 > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c >=20 > between commit: >=20 > a4e21ff8d9a3 ("bpf: minor fix to selftest test_stacktrace_build_id()") >=20 > from the bpf tree and commit: >=20 > 79b453501310 ("tools/bpf: add a test for bpf_get_stack with tracepoint p= rog") >=20 > from the bpf-next tree. >=20 > 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. >=20 > --=20 > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell >=20 > diff --cc tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c > index fac581f1c57f,aa336f0abebc..000000000000 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c > @@@ -1137,9 -1193,14 +1193,14 @@@ static void test_stacktrace_build_id(vo > err, errno)) > goto disable_pmu; >=20 > + stack_amap_fd =3D bpf_find_map(__func__, obj, "stack_amap"); > + if (CHECK(stack_amap_fd < 0, "bpf_find_map stack_amap", > + "err %d errno %d\n", err, errno)) > + goto disable_pmu; > +=20 > assert(system("dd if=3D/dev/urandom of=3D/dev/zero count=3D4 2> /dev/nu= ll") > =3D=3D 0); > - assert(system("./urandom_read if=3D/dev/urandom of=3D/dev/zero count=3D= 4 2> /dev/null") =3D=3D 0); > + assert(system("./urandom_read") =3D=3D 0); > /* disable stack trace collection */ > key =3D 0; > val =3D 1; > @@@ -1188,8 -1249,15 +1249,15 @@@ > previous_key =3D key; > } while (bpf_map_get_next_key(stackmap_fd, &previous_key, &key) =3D=3D = 0); >=20 > - CHECK(build_id_matches < 1, "build id match", > - "Didn't find expected build ID from the map\n"); > + if (CHECK(build_id_matches < 1, "build id match", > - "Didn't find expected build ID from the map")) > ++ "Didn't find expected build ID from the map\n")) ^^^ Is there a "+" at the beginning of this line?=20 Thanks, Song > + goto disable_pmu; > +=20 > + stack_trace_len =3D PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH > + * sizeof(struct bpf_stack_build_id); > + err =3D compare_stack_ips(stackmap_fd, stack_amap_fd, stack_trace_len)= ; > + CHECK(err, "compare_stack_ips stackmap vs. stack_amap", > + "err %d errno %d\n", err, errno); >=20 > disable_pmu: > ioctl(pmu_fd, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE);