On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 3:05 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi all, > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:52:58 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 9:45 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > It's presumably not in any of the pull requests I already have > > > > pending, but it would be nice if I saw some details of _what_ you are > > > > complaining about, and not just the complaint itself ;) > > > > > > Duh, right. It's this series: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/164757541675.26179.17727138330733641017.git-patchwork-notify@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > That went into bpf-next last Friday. I just checked but haven't found a > > > pull for it yet. > > > > Thanks. I can confirm it's not in any of the pull requests I have > > pending, so I'll just start doing my normal work and try to remember > > to look out for this issue later. > > The normal path for bpf-next code is via the net-next tree. But the > above series has not yet been merged into the net-next tree so is only > in the bpf-next tree. > > So, what am I to do? Drop the bpf-next tree from linux-next until this > is resolved? Some input from the BPF people would be useful. > > Dave, Jakub, please do not merge the bpf-bext tree into the net-next > tree for now. That makes little sense. It's not an unusual merge conflict. Peter's endbr series conflict with Masami's fprobe. Peter has a trivial patch that fixes objtool warning. The question is how to land that patch. I think the best is for Linus to apply it after bpf-next->net-next gets merged. We're preparing bpf-next PR right now.
