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

From: Mark Brown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:18:12 +0100

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:

  include/linux/rcupdate.h

between commit:

  ad6ef775cbeff ("rcu-tasks: Document that RCU Tasks Trace grace periods now imply RCU grace periods")

from the origin tree and commit:

  57b23c0f612dc ("bpf: Retire rcu_trace_implies_rcu_gp()")

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 --combined include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 18a85c30fd4f3,bfa765132de85..0000000000000
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@@ -205,15 -205,6 +205,6 @@@ static inline void exit_tasks_rcu_start
  static inline void exit_tasks_rcu_finish(void) { }
  #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_GENERIC */
  
- /**
-  * rcu_trace_implies_rcu_gp - does an RCU Tasks Trace grace period imply an RCU grace period?
-  *
-  * Now that RCU Tasks Trace is implemented in terms of SRCU-fast, a
-  * call to synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace() is guaranteed to imply at least
-  * one call to synchronize_rcu().
-  */
- static inline bool rcu_trace_implies_rcu_gp(void) { return true; }
- 
  /**
   * cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs - Report potential quiescent states to RCU
   *