From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stanislav Fomichev Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the bpf tree Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:03:51 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20190220113729.49f28f73@canb.auug.org.au> <791e9e85-411e-385b-302f-4a4224f76286@iogearbox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <791e9e85-411e-385b-302f-4a4224f76286@iogearbox.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , Networking , Alexei Starovoitov , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:07 PM Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > On 02/20/2019 01:41 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:37 PM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: > >> > >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c > >> > >> between commit: > >> > >> f6be4d16039b ("selftests/bpf: make sure signal interrupts BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN") > > > > Ouch. Thanks for the heads up. > > > > Daniel, > > should we drop this one from bpf tree ? > > I don't think it's strictly necessary. > > Yeah no objections, lets move the selftest one over to bpf-next and > have it properly integrated. I think test_progs might potentially need > further topic-split aside from kernel progs like we did in test_verifier. Do you want me to follow up with a clean rebased bpf-next sefltest patch? Or you'll take care of it yourself? > >> from the bpf tree and commits: > >> > >> bf0f0fd93945 ("selftests/bpf: add simple BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN examples for flow dissector") > >> ab963beb9f5d ("selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock C test") > >> ba72a7b4badb ("selftests/bpf: test for BPF_F_LOCK")