From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6006FC43381 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 03:04:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A31D21738 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 03:04:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="DJbCgyA4" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729172AbfBTDEG (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:04:06 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-f68.google.com ([209.85.167.68]:40811 "EHLO mail-lf1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728691AbfBTDEF (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:04:05 -0500 Received: by mail-lf1-f68.google.com with SMTP id t14so16427622lfk.7 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:04:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UhxZlFeYUb4G5lDIEjealo23e9D8ONoUZ/+0YBaV8hs=; b=DJbCgyA4qwnINIHE60zPRs789mbwnwkxLqw1GrDKuGGcvjMa4rc6Y5gWU91hEfGdwE fWhon3sqNdt+bQ1aa4DayVcOUbS1Sw1WTSnUcUaj+eSald6InzkAOC275XXULbUp2GjT tmvmVbzfDOqBNX9AIdhEmZQDEpmsdE+mFCVJUcS1RYdxbNv6Wgy1AMlXSDLPD+f3H0zp vv5zpwiMs1NBeLr0bS5XioLkdOxc7hs30dF4/+d7tvXzUCen1YfS2idjSLV/jb6ffJY/ uL0Ue1V88gJNKOVuZ/XHNbDsc88D+SilY6O4GHNkoM8j9WyJ/7/u0RJx5GEaDV+2UHmE ZjWw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UhxZlFeYUb4G5lDIEjealo23e9D8ONoUZ/+0YBaV8hs=; b=f2QmF0UfGYasILKKvdfS2aTmvTNmlUg0a3ehPeWbKQiYAO/pjlS8UlsZmp++X5LEf7 cpGmr9xFOsKfWIkF9OuoEnJ/Gxl1NsLMhiurFcUPtqHO7gpFaEBkdFduXCPk4RA0jPs8 pv05JWYKF7qK0vQFaDvj4uQ9NZsOOWmQnckqDckSmF4qJ8/RCnyRivoeXZIh4Y5ECGpy 39EpanNb2yuWRhKtuEck0nUDcHtW6QBTWcHiWv9zdFfoqkqWQqQvcD2H8OM5ZUKEz3A3 XR12ocmzd8kK5lseBML1FxNgpDj7uaXvyH8LVEqbAoBYc+GtBYNTK0uNbRavSWG1lfDK WrcQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubggGYFw5wS0XiW7aBbbsfpYb4pf1u9aP0HItdKdGoKouRMP/vO 44Au+IsYdaziKrtIA0B5HlUjTRm6J5qiJGzJV+GP0g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYrGdWA86kVugXeDWK64GRWScHPiQuFtJnmjRK8eEhl686kGwxlScIdEOYxZBGPTPh4ShWcf8QcCAZbgQ64qE8= X-Received: by 2002:a19:6e0b:: with SMTP id j11mr4084417lfc.124.1550631843464; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:04:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190220113729.49f28f73@canb.auug.org.au> <791e9e85-411e-385b-302f-4a4224f76286@iogearbox.net> In-Reply-To: <791e9e85-411e-385b-302f-4a4224f76286@iogearbox.net> From: Stanislav Fomichev Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:03:51 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the bpf tree To: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , Networking , Alexei Starovoitov , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@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")