Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst
between commit:
0d57063bef1b ("selftests/bpf: update LLVM Phabricator links")
from the mm-nonmm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
f067074bafd5 ("selftests/bpf: Update LLVM Phabricator links")
from the bpf-next tree.
I fixed it up (the latter has one more digit in a SHA1 in a URL, so
I used that) 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
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 5:16 PM Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst
>
> between commit:
>
> 0d57063bef1b ("selftests/bpf: update LLVM Phabricator links")
>
> from the mm-nonmm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
>
> f067074bafd5 ("selftests/bpf: Update LLVM Phabricator links")
>
> from the bpf-next tree.
Andrew,
please drop the bpf related commit from your tree.
Thanks
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 17:18:55 -0800 Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 0d57063bef1b ("selftests/bpf: update LLVM Phabricator links")
> >
> > from the mm-nonmm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
> >
> > f067074bafd5 ("selftests/bpf: Update LLVM Phabricator links")
> >
> > from the bpf-next tree.
>
> Andrew,
> please drop the bpf related commit from your tree.
um, please don't cherry-pick a single patch from a multi-patch series
which I have already applied.
On 1/24/24 9:18 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 17:18:55 -0800 Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>> 0d57063bef1b ("selftests/bpf: update LLVM Phabricator links")
>>>
>>> from the mm-nonmm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
>>>
>>> f067074bafd5 ("selftests/bpf: Update LLVM Phabricator links")
>>>
>>> from the bpf-next tree.
>>
>> Andrew,
>> please drop the bpf related commit from your tree.
>
> um, please don't cherry-pick a single patch from a multi-patch series
> which I have already applied.
The BPF one was actually a stand-alone patch targetted at bpf-next:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240111-bpf-update-llvm-phabricator-links-v2-1-9a7ae976bd64@kernel.org/
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 12:18 AM Andrew Morton
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 17:18:55 -0800 Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > > 0d57063bef1b ("selftests/bpf: update LLVM Phabricator links")
> > >
> > > from the mm-nonmm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
> > >
> > > f067074bafd5 ("selftests/bpf: Update LLVM Phabricator links")
> > >
> > > from the bpf-next tree.
> >
> > Andrew,
> > please drop the bpf related commit from your tree.
>
> um, please don't cherry-pick a single patch from a multi-patch series
> which I have already applied.
hmm. There was a clear feedback on the v1 of the series not to mix bpf
and non-bpf patches and a standalone patch was sent as v2.
Thanks.