On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 01:00:04PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 11:45 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 11:26:57AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > > > It's a merge conflict. The patchset failed to apply to both bpf and > > > bpf-next trees: > > > > Figures :/ I suspect it relies on tip/objtool/core at the very least and > > possibly some of the x86 trees as well. > > > > I can locally merge tip/master with bpf, but getting a CI to do that > > might be tricky. > > We have an ability in CI to supply few additional patches on top bpf/bpf-next > trees, but that's usually done for the cases where we've merged a fix into > one tree, but it's needed in both while bpf->net->linus->net-next->bpf-next > circle is still pending. > > Does tip/objtool/core dependency relevant for this set? > Can you rebase the current set on top of bpf-next and send it to the list > just to get CI to run it? We won't be merging it into bpf-next, of course. > I'm mainly interested in seeing all that additional tests passing that > we have in bpf-next. I should be able to rebase it just to that, let me try that in the am though, brain is fairly fried atm. Do you really want me to post it to the list, or is a git repo good enough?
