Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:
tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
between commit:
cf5a103c98a6 ("selftests/user_events: Fix abi_test for BE archs")
from the kselftest-fixes tree and commit:
cf74c59c4fc1 ("selftests/user_events: Test persist flag cases")
from the ftrace 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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
index f5575ef2007c,3d539e556dcd..000000000000
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
@@@ -47,7 -59,22 +59,22 @@@ static int change_event(bool enable
return ret;
}
- static int reg_enable(void *enable, int size, int bit)
+ static int event_delete(void)
+ {
+ int fd = open(data_file, O_RDWR);
+ int ret;
+
+ if (fd < 0)
+ return -1;
+
+ ret = ioctl(fd, DIAG_IOCSDEL, "__abi_event");
+
+ close(fd);
+
+ return ret;
+ }
+
-static int reg_enable_flags(long *enable, int size, int bit, int flags)
++static int reg_enable_flags(void *enable, int size, int bit, int flags)
{
struct user_reg reg = {0};
int fd = open(data_file, O_RDWR);
@@@ -69,7 -97,12 +97,12 @@@
return ret;
}
-static int reg_enable(long *enable, int size, int bit)
++static int reg_enable(void *enable, int size, int bit)
+ {
+ return reg_enable_flags(enable, size, bit, 0);
+ }
+
-static int reg_disable(long *enable, int bit)
+static int reg_disable(void *enable, int bit)
{
struct user_unreg reg = {0};
int fd = open(data_file, O_RDWR);
On 10/17/23 19:30, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:
>
> tools/testing/selftests/user_events/abi_test.c
>
> between commit:
>
> cf5a103c98a6 ("selftests/user_events: Fix abi_test for BE archs")
>
> from the kselftest-fixes tree and commit:
>
> cf74c59c4fc1 ("selftests/user_events: Test persist flag cases")
>
> from the ftrace 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.
>
Thank you Stephen.
Steve, how would you like to handle this one. I am planning
to send fix to Linus this week to be included in Linux 6.6
in a fixes update.
thanks,
-- Shuah
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:01:04 -0600
Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> Thank you Stephen.
>
> Steve, how would you like to handle this one. I am planning
> to send fix to Linus this week to be included in Linux 6.6
> in a fixes update.
Feel free to send it as you expected to. I do a merge of Linus's tree before
sending a pull request for the merge window, and report all conflicts that
occur.
Linus is good at merge conflict resolution, so this should not be a problem.
-- Steve
On 10/18/23 10:07, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:01:04 -0600
> Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you Stephen.
>>
>> Steve, how would you like to handle this one. I am planning
>> to send fix to Linus this week to be included in Linux 6.6
>> in a fixes update.
>
> Feel free to send it as you expected to. I do a merge of Linus's tree before
> sending a pull request for the merge window, and report all conflicts that
> occur.
>
> Linus is good at merge conflict resolution, so this should not be a problem.
>
> -- Steve
Thank you. I will cc you when I send the pull request later on this week.
thanks,
-- Shuah