Hi Shung-Hsi On 8/22/24 19:19, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 01:53:48AM GMT, bot+bpf-ci@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > [...] >> CI has tested the following submission: >> Status: CONFLICT >> Name: [stable,6.6,2/2] selftests/bpf: Add a test to verify previous stacksafe() fix >> Patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=882411&state=* >> PR: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/7584 >> >> Please rebase your submission onto the most recent upstream change and resubmit >> the patch to get it tested again. > > It seems the BPF CI picks up stable patches and tries to apply it on top > of bpf-next, which fails to due conflict. Could a filter be added to CI > so these are ignored instead? (Or have BPF CI apply and test against > stable/linux-*, but that seems too much to ask) > > OTOH if maintainers and reviewers prefers stable backport not to be sent > to the BPF mailing list, I will drop the CC to BPF mailing list in the > future. > > Thanks, > Shung-Hsi > > [...] Thanks for reporting. The way kernel-patches-daemon (KPD) works is it periodically looks on patchwork for patchsets delegated to BPF tree. If there's a specific tag (bpf, bpf-next, bpf-net, for-next) it'll apply the series to that branch. If not, there's an ordered list of branches to try. bpf-next is first on that list which is why you're seeing the conflicts. From KPD side, the simplest way would be to not have backports show up on patchwork. I think it makes sense - it is not really being sent for review. We could probably add additional logic to ignore stable backports as well. Up to the maintainers. I don't really have an opinion. Thanks, Daniel
