Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] bpf/btf: Add a function to search a member of a struct/union

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 19:24:25 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 6:15 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:59:47 -0700
> > Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >  
> > > Assuming that is addressed. How do we merge the series?
> > > The first 3 patches have serious conflicts with bpf trees.
> > >
> > > Maybe send the first 3 with extra selftest for above recursion
> > > targeting bpf-next then we can have a merge commit that Steven can
> > > pull into tracing?  
> >
> > Would it be possible to do this by basing it off of one of Linus's tags,
> > and doing the merge and conflict resolution in your tree before it gets
> > to Linus?
> >
> > That way we can pull in that clean branch without having to pull in
> > anything else from BPF. I believe Linus prefers this over having tracing
> > having extra changes from BPF that are not yet in his tree. We only need
> > these particular changes, we shouldn't be pulling in anything specific
> > for BPF, as I believe that will cause issues on Linus's side.  
> 
> We can try, but I suspect git tricks won't do it.
> Masami's changes depend on patches for kernel/bpf/btf.c that
> are already in bpf-next, so git would have to follow all commits

You mean other patches that Masami has sent are in the bpf tree already and
these are on top of them?

-- Steve

> that touch this file. I don't think git is smart enough to
> thread the needle and split the commit into files. If one commit touches
> btf.c and something else that whole commit becomes a dependency
> that pulls another commit with all files touched by
> the previous commit and so on.
> tbh for this set, the easiest for everyone, is to land the whole thing
> through bpf-next, since there are no conflicts on fprobe side.