On 08/25, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > Could you rebase this against bpf-next tree so this can run through our BPF > CI? Right now the CI cannot pick the patch up due to merge conflict [0]. > > Thanks, > Daniel > > [0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20230822120549.GA22091@xxxxxxxxxx/ The merge failed because this patch depends on [PATCH] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: cleanup the usage of next_thread() in this thread. But please forget. I've sent the new series. It would be nice if you can test at least 1-5, the last 6/6 depends on [PATCH 1/2] introduce __next_thread(), fix next_tid() vs exec() race https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230824143142.GA31222@xxxxxxxxxx/ which was not merged yet. Oleg.
