Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the bpf tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 11:43:16 +1000

Hi all,

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:05:27 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> 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