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

From: Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:27:43 +0100

* Peter Zijlstra <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > 
> > between commits:
> > 
> >   97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers")
> > and more changes ...
> > 
> > from the net-next tree and commit:
> > 
> >   7d9285e82db5 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() interface, a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers"")
> > 
> > from the tip tree.
> 
> So those should be the exact same patch; except for Changelog and
> subject. Code wise there shouldn't be a conflict.

So the problem is that then we have:

  0d3d73aac2ff ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping")

which changes the code. This is a known conflict generation pattern: Git isn't 
smart enough to sort out that (probably because it would make merges too 
expensive) - and it's a bad flow in any case.

Thanks,

	Ingo