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 16:45:46 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20190220113729.49f28f73@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , Networking , Daniel Borkmann , Alexei Starovoitov , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:41 PM 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, those can go via the bpf-next three as well, not very critical. OTOH, I don't understand why is there a conflict? bpf and bpf-next adding tests in the same place/file? Those can be trivially resolved when bpf and bpf-next are merged in the next window. > > > 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") > >