On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 1:12 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 09:33:11PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 9:07 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > > 5da7e15fb5a1 ("net: Add rx_skb of kfree_skb to raw_tp_null_args[].")
> > >
> > > from the bpf tree and commit:
> > >
> > > c83e2d970bae ("bpf: Add tracepoints with null-able arguments")
> > >
> > > from the bpf-next tree.
> > >
> > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> > > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> > > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> > > is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> > > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> > > complex conflicts.
> >
> > Thanks for headsup.
> >
> > Jiri,
> > what should we do ?
> > I feel that moving c83e2d970bae into bpf tree would be the best ?
>
> right, bpf tree would have been better fit for that.. should I resend that for bpf tree?
After sleeping on it I guess it's fine as-is.
When bpf tree gets pulled we will merge Linus's tree and resolve that
conflict way before the merge window.
