On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:45 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Em Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 08:39:28AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov escreveu: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 5:45 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > > <acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Another fix I'm carrying in my perf/core branch, > > > Why in perf/core? > > I very much prefer all libbpf patches to go via normal route via bpf/net trees. > > We had enough conflicts in this merge window. Let's avoid them. > > Humm, if we both carry the same patch the merge process can do its magic > and nobody gets hurt? Besides these are really minor things, no? I thought so too, but learned the hard lesson recently. We should try to avoid that as much as possible. Andrii's is fixing stuff in the same lines: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1201344/ these two patches will likely conflict. I'd rather have them both in bpf tree. What is the value for this patch in perf tree? To fix the build on 32-bit arches, right? But how urgent is it? Can you wait few days until this one and other libbpf fixes land via bpf/net trees?
