Hi all, On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:05:27 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in: > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_netlink.c > > between commits: > > 9c82a63cf370 ("libbpf: Fix CO-RE relocs against .text section") > 647b502e3d54 ("selftests/bpf: Refactor some net macros to bpf_tracing_net.h") > > from the bpf tree and commit: > > 84544f5637ff ("selftests/bpf: Move newer bpf_iter_* type redefining to a new header file") > > from the bpf-next tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree > is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly > complex conflicts. > > diff --cc tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_netlink.c > index 75ecf956a2df,cec82a419800..000000000000 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_netlink.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_netlink.c > @@@ -11,21 -7,7 +7,7 @@@ > > char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; > > - #define sk_rmem_alloc sk_backlog.rmem_alloc > - #define sk_refcnt __sk_common.skc_refcnt > - > - struct bpf_iter_meta { > - struct seq_file *seq; > - __u64 session_id; > - __u64 seq_num; > - } __attribute__((preserve_access_index)); > - > - struct bpf_iter__netlink { > - struct bpf_iter_meta *meta; > - struct netlink_sock *sk; > - } __attribute__((preserve_access_index)); > - > -static inline struct inode *SOCK_INODE(struct socket *socket) > +static __attribute__((noinline)) struct inode *SOCK_INODE(struct socket *socket) > { > return &container_of(socket, struct socket_alloc, socket)->vfs_inode; > } This is now a conflict between net-next tree and the net tree. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpUJppeRv1se.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature