From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net-next tree Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:27:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20171101082742.dteg337holmodzn2@gmail.com> References: <20171101181554.1826e8c8@canb.auug.org.au> <20171101081832.zdehp7ysi5ecwsdv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171101081832.zdehp7ysi5ecwsdv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , David Miller , Networking , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Yonghong Song List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org * 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. Thanks, Ingo