Re: arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp conflicts. was: [tip:x86/cleanups] x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code more readable

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 04/28/2018 12:16 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 4/27/18 5:13 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 04/27/2018 01:00 PM, tip-bot for Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> Commit-ID:Â 5f26c50143f58f256535bee8d93a105f36d4d2da
>>> Gitweb:ÂÂÂÂ https://git.kernel.org/tip/5f26c50143f58f256535bee8d93a105f36d4d2da
>>> Author:ÂÂÂÂ Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> AuthorDate: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:54:40 +0200
>>> Committer:Â Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> CommitDate: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:42:04 +0200
>>>
>>> x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code more readable
>>>
>>> So by chance I looked into x86 assembly in arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c and
>>> noticed the weird and inconsistent comment style it mistakenly learned from
>>> the networking code:
>>>
>>> Â/* Multi-line comment ...
>>> Â * ... looks like this.
>>> Â */
>>>
[...]
>>> No change in functionality.
>>
>> Thanks for the cleanup, looks fine to me!
> 
> same here. thanks for the cleanup!
> 
>>> ( In case this commit causes conflicts with pending development code
>>> Â I'll be glad to help resolve any conflicts! )
>>
>> Any objections if we would simply route this via bpf-next tree, otherwise
>> this will indeed cause really ugly merge conflicts throughout the JIT with
>> pending work.

Since no one hollered I've cherry picked this into bpf-next tree so that
upcoming BPF work can be rebased on top of this, thanks Ingo!

> right. would be much better to route this patch via bpf-next.
> Though all the changes are cleanups in comments I'm pretty sure
> they will conflict with other changes we're doing.
> 
> Ingo,
> could you please drop this patch from tip tree and resend it to us?
> I cannot find the original patch in any public mailing list.
> Only in tip-bot notification.
> 
> Personally I don't care whether bpf jit code uses networking
> or non-networking style of comments, but will be happy to enforce
> non-networking for this file in the future, since that seems to be the
> preference.
> 
> Thanks