On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 2:05 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? Please post it. CI cannot pull it from the repo.
