Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: bpf: update .gitignore with missing file
To:     Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
Cc:     ast@kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
References: <20180423135057.951-1-anders.roxell@linaro.org>
 <5ea150a6-8af1-3aa8-7ff0-5fdb64054bab@iogearbox.net>
 <CADYN=9KAorrGBh+2_LZ+6cxaf4yU-pOmU4BSzkMKT8sdU7hhUw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Message-ID: <065a8bc2-6065-3d43-8b03-35ed693de7ce@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 00:31:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADYN=9KAorrGBh+2_LZ+6cxaf4yU-pOmU4BSzkMKT8sdU7hhUw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 04/24/2018 12:14 AM, Anders Roxell wrote:
> On 23 April 2018 at 23:34, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
>> On 04/23/2018 03:50 PM, Anders Roxell wrote:
>>> Fixes: c0fa1b6c3efc ("bpf: btf: Add BTF tests")
>>> Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/.gitignore | 1 +
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/.gitignore b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/.gitignore
>>> index 5e1ab2f0eb79..3e3b3ced3f7c 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/.gitignore
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/.gitignore
>>> @@ -15,3 +15,4 @@ test_libbpf_open
>>>  test_sock
>>>  test_sock_addr
>>>  urandom_read
>>> +test_btf
>>
>> Against which tree is this? This doesn't apply to bpf-next. It would
>> apply against bpf tree, but c0fa1b6c3efc ("bpf: btf: Add BTF tests")
>> is part of bpf-next, so fits to neither of them.
> 
> I'm sorry,
> 
> I did it against this patch [1] that I thought was already applied to
> the bpf tree.

That was bpf tree since the original change already went to mainline; the
BTF is in bpf-next however, so you need to rebase your change against that.

Thanks,
Daniel