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

[Stanislav Fomichev]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:41 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:37 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   f6be4d16039b ("selftests/bpf: make sure signal interrupts BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN")
>
> Ouch. Thanks for the heads up.
>
> Daniel,
> should we drop this one from bpf tree ?
> I don't think it's strictly necessary.
Yeah, those can go via the bpf-next three as well, not very critical.

OTOH, I don't understand why is there a conflict? bpf and bpf-next
adding tests in the same place/file? Those can be trivially resolved
when bpf and bpf-next are merged in the next window.
>
> > from the bpf tree and commits:
> >
> >   bf0f0fd93945 ("selftests/bpf: add simple BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN examples for flow dissector")
> >   ab963beb9f5d ("selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock C test")
> >   ba72a7b4badb ("selftests/bpf: test for BPF_F_LOCK")
> >