On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:07 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 02/20/2019 01:41 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:37 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> >>
> >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
> >>
> >> between commit:
> >>
> >> f6be4d16039b ("selftests/bpf: make sure signal interrupts BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN")
> >
> > Ouch. Thanks for the heads up.
> >
> > Daniel,
> > should we drop this one from bpf tree ?
> > I don't think it's strictly necessary.
>
> Yeah no objections, lets move the selftest one over to bpf-next and
> have it properly integrated. I think test_progs might potentially need
> further topic-split aside from kernel progs like we did in test_verifier.
Do you want me to follow up with a clean rebased bpf-next sefltest patch?
Or you'll take care of it yourself?
> >> from the bpf tree and commits:
> >>
> >> bf0f0fd93945 ("selftests/bpf: add simple BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN examples for flow dissector")
> >> ab963beb9f5d ("selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock C test")
> >> ba72a7b4badb ("selftests/bpf: test for BPF_F_LOCK")
