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

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 01:31:39PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   samples/bpf/Makefile
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   1d97c6c2511f ("samples/bpf: Base target programs rules on Makefile.target")
> 
> from the net-next tree and commit:
> 
>   fce9501aec6b ("samples/bpf: fix build by setting HAVE_ATTR_TEST to zero")
> 
> from the tip tree.

Argh.
Can tip folks revert the patch and let it go the normal route via bpf trees?
There was no good reason in creating such conflicts.

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:55:47 + Mark Brown  wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   6aa7de059173a ("locking/atomics: COCCINELLE/treewide: Convert trivial 
> ACCESS_ONCE() patterns to READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE()")
> 
> in the tip tree and some change in the net-next 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.
> 
> diff --cc net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> index a69a34f57330,48531da1aba6..
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> @@@ -1978,7 -1908,7 +1978,7 @@@ static bool tcp_tso_should_defer(struc
>   if ((skb != tcp_write_queue_tail(sk)) && (limit >= skb->len))
>   goto send_now;
>   
> - win_divisor = 
> ACCESS_ONCE(sock_net(sk)->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_tso_win_divisor);
>  -win_divisor = READ_ONCE(sysctl_tcp_tso_win_divisor);
> ++win_divisor = READ_ONCE(sock_net(sk)->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_tso_win_divisor);
>   if (win_divisor) {
>   u32 chunk = min(tp->snd_wnd, tp->snd_cwnd * tp->mss_cache);
>   

Just a reminder that this conflict still exists.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:55:47 + Mark Brown  wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   6aa7de059173a ("locking/atomics: COCCINELLE/treewide: Convert trivial 
> ACCESS_ONCE() patterns to READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE()")
> 
> in the tip tree and some change in the net-next 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.
> 
> diff --cc net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> index a69a34f57330,48531da1aba6..
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> @@@ -1978,7 -1908,7 +1978,7 @@@ static bool tcp_tso_should_defer(struc
>   if ((skb != tcp_write_queue_tail(sk)) && (limit >= skb->len))
>   goto send_now;
>   
> - win_divisor = 
> ACCESS_ONCE(sock_net(sk)->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_tso_win_divisor);
>  -win_divisor = READ_ONCE(sysctl_tcp_tso_win_divisor);
> ++win_divisor = READ_ONCE(sock_net(sk)->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_tso_win_divisor);
>   if (win_divisor) {
>   u32 chunk = min(tp->snd_wnd, tp->snd_cwnd * tp->mss_cache);
>   

Just a reminder that this conflict still exists.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Alexei,

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:27:14 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov 
 wrote:
>
> Also what do you mean by "same patch != same commit" ?
> Like if we had pushed to some 3rd tree first and then pulled
> into tip and net-next it would have been better?

Well, it would not have caused a conflict.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Alexei,

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:27:14 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov 
 wrote:
>
> Also what do you mean by "same patch != same commit" ?
> Like if we had pushed to some 3rd tree first and then pulled
> into tip and net-next it would have been better?

Well, it would not have caused a conflict.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:55:24AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:27:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Peter Zijlstra  wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> > > > 
> > > >   kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > > 
> > > > between commits:
> > > > 
> > > >   97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf 
> > > > helpers")
> > > > and more changes ...
> > > > 
> > > > from the net-next tree and commit:
> > > > 
> > > >   7d9285e82db5 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() 
> > > > interface, a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf 
> > > > helpers"")
> > > > 
> > > > from the tip tree.
> > > 
> > > So those should be the exact same patch; except for Changelog and
> > > subject. Code wise there shouldn't be a conflict.
> > 
> > So the problem is that then we have:
> > 
> >   0d3d73aac2ff ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping")
> > 
> > which changes the code. This is a known conflict generation pattern: Git 
> > isn't 
> > smart enough to sort out that (probably because it would make merges too 
> > expensive) - and it's a bad flow in any case.
> 
> Hmm, I thought having that same base patch in both trees would allow it
> to resolve that conflict. A well..

sigh. I had the same impression.
In the past the same patch was applied to both tip and net-next
and there were no conflicts.
May be git could have been smarter if you kept the same
one line commit description as we have in net-next?

Will it help if we push the same ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping") commit
into net-next ? They will be in different order, so it probably
won't help and only make things worse. That sucks.

I think we need to discuss what should be our apporach moving
forward to commits that affect tracing and networking at the same time.
I don't think pushing to only one tree is an option, since it will be
close to impossible to resolve such conflicts at merge window time.
Linus would need to do some major surgery to untangle the mess.
I think it's still the best to push to both trees and expect
such mini-conflicts to appear in linux-next.
Like this time it was pretty obvious that commits are the same
and no real action necessary.

Also what do you mean by "same patch != same commit" ?
Like if we had pushed to some 3rd tree first and then pulled
into tip and net-next it would have been better?

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

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:55:24AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:27:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Peter Zijlstra  wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> > > > 
> > > >   kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > > 
> > > > between commits:
> > > > 
> > > >   97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf 
> > > > helpers")
> > > > and more changes ...
> > > > 
> > > > from the net-next tree and commit:
> > > > 
> > > >   7d9285e82db5 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() 
> > > > interface, a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf 
> > > > helpers"")
> > > > 
> > > > from the tip tree.
> > > 
> > > So those should be the exact same patch; except for Changelog and
> > > subject. Code wise there shouldn't be a conflict.
> > 
> > So the problem is that then we have:
> > 
> >   0d3d73aac2ff ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping")
> > 
> > which changes the code. This is a known conflict generation pattern: Git 
> > isn't 
> > smart enough to sort out that (probably because it would make merges too 
> > expensive) - and it's a bad flow in any case.
> 
> Hmm, I thought having that same base patch in both trees would allow it
> to resolve that conflict. A well..

sigh. I had the same impression.
In the past the same patch was applied to both tip and net-next
and there were no conflicts.
May be git could have been smarter if you kept the same
one line commit description as we have in net-next?

Will it help if we push the same ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping") commit
into net-next ? They will be in different order, so it probably
won't help and only make things worse. That sucks.

I think we need to discuss what should be our apporach moving
forward to commits that affect tracing and networking at the same time.
I don't think pushing to only one tree is an option, since it will be
close to impossible to resolve such conflicts at merge window time.
Linus would need to do some major surgery to untangle the mess.
I think it's still the best to push to both trees and expect
such mini-conflicts to appear in linux-next.
Like this time it was pretty obvious that commits are the same
and no real action necessary.

Also what do you mean by "same patch != same commit" ?
Like if we had pushed to some 3rd tree first and then pulled
into tip and net-next it would have been better?

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Peter,

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:55:24 +0100 Peter Zijlstra  wrote:
>
> Hmm, I thought having that same base patch in both trees would allow it
> to resolve that conflict. A well..

There is a difference between having he same patch and the same commit ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Peter,

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:55:24 +0100 Peter Zijlstra  wrote:
>
> Hmm, I thought having that same base patch in both trees would allow it
> to resolve that conflict. A well..

There is a difference between having he same patch and the same commit ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:27:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Peter Zijlstra  wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> > > > 
> > > >   kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > > 
> > > > between commits:
> > > > 
> > > >   97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf 
> > > > helpers")
> > > > and more changes ...
> > > > 
> > > > from the net-next tree and commit:
> > > > 
> > > >   7d9285e82db5 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() 
> > > > interface, a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf 
> > > > helpers"")
> > > > 
> > > > from the tip tree.
> > > 
> > > So those should be the exact same patch; except for Changelog and
> > > subject. Code wise there shouldn't be a conflict.
> > 
> > So the problem is that then we have:
> > 
> >   0d3d73aac2ff ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping")
> > 
> > which changes the code. This is a known conflict generation pattern: Git 
> > isn't 
> > smart enough to sort out that (probably because it would make merges too 
> > expensive) - and it's a bad flow in any case.
> 
> Hmm, I thought having that same base patch in both trees would allow it
> to resolve that conflict. A well..

I think that would require content level matching of a rather horrifying volume 
to 
resolve, slowing down Git merges horribly. (Maybe there's an option for Git to 
do 
that, but it's not the default I think.)

Thanks,

Ingo

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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:27:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Peter Zijlstra  wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> > > > 
> > > >   kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > > 
> > > > between commits:
> > > > 
> > > >   97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf 
> > > > helpers")
> > > > and more changes ...
> > > > 
> > > > from the net-next tree and commit:
> > > > 
> > > >   7d9285e82db5 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() 
> > > > interface, a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf 
> > > > helpers"")
> > > > 
> > > > from the tip tree.
> > > 
> > > So those should be the exact same patch; except for Changelog and
> > > subject. Code wise there shouldn't be a conflict.
> > 
> > So the problem is that then we have:
> > 
> >   0d3d73aac2ff ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping")
> > 
> > which changes the code. This is a known conflict generation pattern: Git 
> > isn't 
> > smart enough to sort out that (probably because it would make merges too 
> > expensive) - and it's a bad flow in any case.
> 
> Hmm, I thought having that same base patch in both trees would allow it
> to resolve that conflict. A well..

I think that would require content level matching of a rather horrifying volume 
to 
resolve, slowing down Git merges horribly. (Maybe there's an option for Git to 
do 
that, but it's not the default I think.)

Thanks,

Ingo

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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:27:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Peter Zijlstra  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > 
> > > between commits:
> > > 
> > >   97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf 
> > > helpers")
> > > and more changes ...
> > > 
> > > from the net-next tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   7d9285e82db5 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() interface, 
> > > a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers"")
> > > 
> > > from the tip tree.
> > 
> > So those should be the exact same patch; except for Changelog and
> > subject. Code wise there shouldn't be a conflict.
> 
> So the problem is that then we have:
> 
>   0d3d73aac2ff ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping")
> 
> which changes the code. This is a known conflict generation pattern: Git 
> isn't 
> smart enough to sort out that (probably because it would make merges too 
> expensive) - and it's a bad flow in any case.

Hmm, I thought having that same base patch in both trees would allow it
to resolve that conflict. A well..

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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:27:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Peter Zijlstra  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > 
> > > between commits:
> > > 
> > >   97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf 
> > > helpers")
> > > and more changes ...
> > > 
> > > from the net-next tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   7d9285e82db5 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() interface, 
> > > a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers"")
> > > 
> > > from the tip tree.
> > 
> > So those should be the exact same patch; except for Changelog and
> > subject. Code wise there shouldn't be a conflict.
> 
> So the problem is that then we have:
> 
>   0d3d73aac2ff ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping")
> 
> which changes the code. This is a known conflict generation pattern: Git 
> isn't 
> smart enough to sort out that (probably because it would make merges too 
> expensive) - and it's a bad flow in any case.

Hmm, I thought having that same base patch in both trees would allow it
to resolve that conflict. A well..

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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > 
> > between commits:
> > 
> >   97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers")
> > and more changes ...
> > 
> > from the net-next tree and commit:
> > 
> >   7d9285e82db5 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() interface, 
> > a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers"")
> > 
> > from the tip tree.
> 
> So those should be the exact same patch; except for Changelog and
> subject. Code wise there shouldn't be a conflict.

So the problem is that then we have:

  0d3d73aac2ff ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping")

which changes the code. This is a known conflict generation pattern: Git isn't 
smart enough to sort out that (probably because it would make merges too 
expensive) - and it's a bad flow in any case.

Thanks,

Ingo

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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > 
> > between commits:
> > 
> >   97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers")
> > and more changes ...
> > 
> > from the net-next tree and commit:
> > 
> >   7d9285e82db5 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() interface, 
> > a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers"")
> > 
> > from the tip tree.
> 
> So those should be the exact same patch; except for Changelog and
> subject. Code wise there shouldn't be a conflict.

So the problem is that then we have:

  0d3d73aac2ff ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping")

which changes the code. This is a known conflict generation pattern: Git isn't 
smart enough to sort out that (probably because it would make merges too 
expensive) - and it's a bad flow in any case.

Thanks,

Ingo

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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers")
> and more changes ...
> 
> from the net-next tree and commit:
> 
>   7d9285e82db5 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() interface, 
> a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers"")
> 
> from the tip tree.

So those should be the exact same patch; except for Changelog and
subject. Code wise there shouldn't be a conflict.

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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers")
> and more changes ...
> 
> from the net-next tree and commit:
> 
>   7d9285e82db5 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() interface, 
> a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers"")
> 
> from the tip tree.

So those should be the exact same patch; except for Changelog and
subject. Code wise there shouldn't be a conflict.

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Dave,

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:47:02 +1000 Stephen Rothwell  
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/lio_main.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   d1d97ee6e3a8 ("liquidio: moved liquidio_napi_drv_callback to lio_core.c")
> 
> from the net-next tree and commit:
> 
>   966a967116e6 ("smp: Avoid using two cache lines for struct 
> call_single_data")
> 
> from the tip tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I added the blow merge fix patch) 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.
> 
> From: Stephen Rothwell 
> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:42:50 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] liquidio: fix for merge with "smp: Avoid using two cache
>  lines for struct call_single_data"
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell 
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/lio_core.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/lio_core.c 
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/lio_core.c
> index 0e7896cdb295..23f6b60030c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/lio_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/lio_core.c
> @@ -613,7 +613,7 @@ static void liquidio_napi_drv_callback(void *arg)
>   droq->cpu_id == this_cpu) {
>   napi_schedule_irqoff(>napi);
>   } else {
> - struct call_single_data *csd = >csd;
> + call_single_data_t *csd = >csd;
>  
>   csd->func = napi_schedule_wrapper;
>   csd->info = >napi;

The above merge fix patch is now needed when I merge the net-next tree
with Linus' tree (since the tip commit has been merged by Linus).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Dave,

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:47:02 +1000 Stephen Rothwell  
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/lio_main.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   d1d97ee6e3a8 ("liquidio: moved liquidio_napi_drv_callback to lio_core.c")
> 
> from the net-next tree and commit:
> 
>   966a967116e6 ("smp: Avoid using two cache lines for struct 
> call_single_data")
> 
> from the tip tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I added the blow merge fix patch) 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.
> 
> From: Stephen Rothwell 
> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:42:50 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] liquidio: fix for merge with "smp: Avoid using two cache
>  lines for struct call_single_data"
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell 
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/lio_core.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/lio_core.c 
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/lio_core.c
> index 0e7896cdb295..23f6b60030c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/lio_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/lio_core.c
> @@ -613,7 +613,7 @@ static void liquidio_napi_drv_callback(void *arg)
>   droq->cpu_id == this_cpu) {
>   napi_schedule_irqoff(>napi);
>   } else {
> - struct call_single_data *csd = >csd;
> + call_single_data_t *csd = >csd;
>  
>   csd->func = napi_schedule_wrapper;
>   csd->info = >napi;

The above merge fix patch is now needed when I merge the net-next tree
with Linus' tree (since the tip commit has been merged by Linus).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 02/20/2017 02:22 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:

   kernel/extable.c

between commit:

   74451e66d516 ("bpf: make jited programs visible in traces")

from the net-next tree and commit:

   5b485629ba0d ("kprobes, extable: Identify kprobes trampolines as kernel text 
area")

from the tip 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.


Looks good to me, thanks!

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

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 02/20/2017 02:22 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:

   kernel/extable.c

between commit:

   74451e66d516 ("bpf: make jited programs visible in traces")

from the net-next tree and commit:

   5b485629ba0d ("kprobes, extable: Identify kprobes trampolines as kernel text 
area")

from the tip 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.


Looks good to me, thanks!

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

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On 4/7/15 12:04 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
samples/bpf/Makefile between commit 91bc4822c3d6 ("tc: bpf: add
checksum helpers") from the net-next tree and commit b896c4f95ab4
("samples/bpf: Add simple non-portable kprobe filter example") (and
following) from the tip tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).



Looks good. Thanks Stephen.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On 4/7/15 12:11 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
include/uapi/linux/bpf.h between commit 96be4325f443 ("ebpf: add
sched_cls_type and map it to sk_filter's verifier ops"), 03e69b508b6f
("ebpf: add prandom helper for packet sampling"), c04167ce2ca0 ("ebpf:
add helper for obtaining current processor id"), 94caee8c312d ("ebpf:
add sched_act_type and map it to sk_filter's verifier ops"),
608cd71a9c7c ("tc: bpf: generalize pedit action") and 91bc4822c3d6
("tc: bpf: add checksum helpers") from the net-next tree and commit
2541517c32be ("tracing, perf: Implement BPF programs attached to
kprobes"), d9847d310ab4 ("tracing: Allow BPF programs to call
bpf_ktime_get_ns()") and 9c959c863f82 ("tracing: Allow BPF programs to
call bpf_trace_printk()") from the tip tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).



Looks good. Thanks!

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 04/07/2015 09:11 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
...

Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
include/uapi/linux/bpf.h between commit 96be4325f443 ("ebpf: add
sched_cls_type and map it to sk_filter's verifier ops"), 03e69b508b6f
("ebpf: add prandom helper for packet sampling"), c04167ce2ca0 ("ebpf:
add helper for obtaining current processor id"), 94caee8c312d ("ebpf:
add sched_act_type and map it to sk_filter's verifier ops"),
608cd71a9c7c ("tc: bpf: generalize pedit action") and 91bc4822c3d6
("tc: bpf: add checksum helpers") from the net-next tree and commit
2541517c32be ("tracing, perf: Implement BPF programs attached to
kprobes"), d9847d310ab4 ("tracing: Allow BPF programs to call
bpf_ktime_get_ns()") and 9c959c863f82 ("tracing: Allow BPF programs to
call bpf_trace_printk()") from the tip tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).


Looks good to me, thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 04/07/2015 09:00 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
...

Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
include/linux/bpf.h between commit 0fc174dea545 ("ebpf: make internal
bpf API independent of CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL ifdefs") from the net-next
tree and commit 4e537f7fbdce ("bpf: Make internal bpf API independent
of CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL #ifdefs") from the tip tree.

I fixed it up (they are the same patch and there are other changes in
the net-next tree, so I just used that version) and can carry the fix
as necessary (no action is required).


Thanks, Stephen! That is correct.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 04/07/2015 09:11 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
...

Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
include/uapi/linux/bpf.h between commit 96be4325f443 (ebpf: add
sched_cls_type and map it to sk_filter's verifier ops), 03e69b508b6f
(ebpf: add prandom helper for packet sampling), c04167ce2ca0 (ebpf:
add helper for obtaining current processor id), 94caee8c312d (ebpf:
add sched_act_type and map it to sk_filter's verifier ops),
608cd71a9c7c (tc: bpf: generalize pedit action) and 91bc4822c3d6
(tc: bpf: add checksum helpers) from the net-next tree and commit
2541517c32be (tracing, perf: Implement BPF programs attached to
kprobes), d9847d310ab4 (tracing: Allow BPF programs to call
bpf_ktime_get_ns()) and 9c959c863f82 (tracing: Allow BPF programs to
call bpf_trace_printk()) from the tip tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).


Looks good to me, thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 04/07/2015 09:00 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
...

Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
include/linux/bpf.h between commit 0fc174dea545 (ebpf: make internal
bpf API independent of CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL ifdefs) from the net-next
tree and commit 4e537f7fbdce (bpf: Make internal bpf API independent
of CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL #ifdefs) from the tip tree.

I fixed it up (they are the same patch and there are other changes in
the net-next tree, so I just used that version) and can carry the fix
as necessary (no action is required).


Thanks, Stephen! That is correct.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On 4/7/15 12:04 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
samples/bpf/Makefile between commit 91bc4822c3d6 (tc: bpf: add
checksum helpers) from the net-next tree and commit b896c4f95ab4
(samples/bpf: Add simple non-portable kprobe filter example) (and
following) from the tip tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).



Looks good. Thanks Stephen.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On 4/7/15 12:11 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
include/uapi/linux/bpf.h between commit 96be4325f443 (ebpf: add
sched_cls_type and map it to sk_filter's verifier ops), 03e69b508b6f
(ebpf: add prandom helper for packet sampling), c04167ce2ca0 (ebpf:
add helper for obtaining current processor id), 94caee8c312d (ebpf:
add sched_act_type and map it to sk_filter's verifier ops),
608cd71a9c7c (tc: bpf: generalize pedit action) and 91bc4822c3d6
(tc: bpf: add checksum helpers) from the net-next tree and commit
2541517c32be (tracing, perf: Implement BPF programs attached to
kprobes), d9847d310ab4 (tracing: Allow BPF programs to call
bpf_ktime_get_ns()) and 9c959c863f82 (tracing: Allow BPF programs to
call bpf_trace_printk()) from the tip tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).



Looks good. Thanks!

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Dave,

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:48:41 -0800 (PST) David Miller  
wrote:
>
> Net patch applied, thanks Stephen.

Thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpLeAmu5C984.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[David Miller]

From: Stephen Rothwell 
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:44:20 +1100

> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:19:46 -0800 (PST) David Miller  
> wrote:
>>
>> From: "H. Peter Anvin" 
>> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:51:43 -0800
>> 
>> > Is there a sensible way we can fix this in either net-next or tip?
>> 
>> I think if I sort the files in net-next the problem will go away,
>> if someone can confirm this I'll do it.
> 
> I have attached 2 patches: one for net-next and one for tip/auto-latest
> (but should be applicable in the appropriate topic branch).  If both are
> applied to their respect trees, then I get no conflict when merging the
> two trees.

Net patch applied, thanks Stephen.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:19:46 -0800 (PST) David Miller  
wrote:
>
> From: "H. Peter Anvin" 
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:51:43 -0800
> 
> > Is there a sensible way we can fix this in either net-next or tip?
> 
> I think if I sort the files in net-next the problem will go away,
> if someone can confirm this I'll do it.

I have attached 2 patches: one for net-next and one for tip/auto-latest
(but should be applicable in the appropriate topic branch).  If both are
applied to their respect trees, then I get no conflict when merging the
two trees.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
>From da6b3ed2f43d1a0c5e946d11902c167eb6188cca Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stephen Rothwell 
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:37:45 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] net: resort some Kbuild files to hopefully help avoid some
 conflicts

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell 
---
 arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild| 2 +-
 arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild   | 2 +-
 arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild| 2 +-
 arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild | 2 +-
 arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild| 2 +-
 arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild  | 2 +-
 6 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild
index 93e6ca919620..cf29d84fd9c2 100644
--- a/arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild
+++ b/arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ generic-y += fcntl.h
 generic-y += fb.h
 generic-y += ftrace.h
 generic-y += hardirq.h
+generic-y += hash.h
 generic-y += hw_irq.h
 generic-y += ioctl.h
 generic-y += ioctls.h
@@ -47,4 +48,3 @@ generic-y += user.h
 generic-y += vga.h
 generic-y += xor.h
 generic-y += preempt.h
-generic-y += hash.h
diff --git a/arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild
index c5963b3e4624..406cbd3ebd58 100644
--- a/arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild
+++ b/arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild
@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ header-y += arch-v32/
 
 generic-y += clkdev.h
 generic-y += exec.h
+generic-y += hash.h
 generic-y += kvm_para.h
 generic-y += linkage.h
 generic-y += module.h
@@ -12,4 +13,3 @@ generic-y += trace_clock.h
 generic-y += vga.h
 generic-y += xor.h
 generic-y += preempt.h
-generic-y += hash.h
diff --git a/arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild
index 469d223950ff..ae45d75a3187 100644
--- a/arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild
+++ b/arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ generic-y += fb.h
 generic-y += fcntl.h
 generic-y += ftrace.h
 generic-y += hardirq.h
+generic-y += hash.h
 generic-y += hw_irq.h
 generic-y += ioctl.h
 generic-y += ioctls.h
@@ -54,4 +55,3 @@ generic-y += ucontext.h
 generic-y += unaligned.h
 generic-y += xor.h
 generic-y += preempt.h
-generic-y += hash.h
diff --git a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild
index 43eec338ff50..ca60945ddf30 100644
--- a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild
+++ b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 
 generic-y += clkdev.h
 generic-y += exec.h
+generic-y += hash.h
 generic-y += trace_clock.h
 generic-y += syscalls.h
 generic-y += preempt.h
-generic-y += hash.h
diff --git a/arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild
index bc42f14c9c2e..199345207d82 100644
--- a/arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild
+++ b/arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 
 generic-y += clkdev.h
 generic-y += exec.h
+generic-y += hash.h
 generic-y += trace_clock.h
 generic-y += preempt.h
-generic-y += hash.h
diff --git a/arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild
index 099e7ba40599..1d35e33ccf86 100644
--- a/arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild
+++ b/arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild
@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 header-y +=
 
 generic-y += clkdev.h
+generic-y += hash.h
 generic-y += trace_clock.h
 generic-y += xor.h
 generic-y += preempt.h
-generic-y += hash.h
 
-- 
1.8.5.2

>From 6d0a3746f35cb879189228093728251b7ce04135 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stephen Rothwell 
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:36:10 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] tip: resort some Kbuild files to hopefully help avoid some
 conflicts

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell 
---
 arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild| 2 +-
 arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild   | 2 +-
 arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild| 2 +-
 arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild | 2 +-
 arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild| 2 +-
 arch/parisc/include/asm/Kbuild | 2 +-
 arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild  | 2 +-
 7 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild
index e07c786011af..9ae21c198007 100644
--- a/arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild
+++ b/arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 generic-y += auxvec.h
+generic-y += barrier.h
 generic-y += bugs.h
 generic-y += bitsperlong.h
 generic-y += clkdev.h
@@ -47,4 +48,3 @@ generic-y += user.h
 generic-y += vga.h
 generic-y += xor.h
 generic-y += preempt.h
-generic-y += barrier.h
diff --git a/arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild
index 35ec2e5ca832..199b1a9dab89 100644
--- 

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

[David Miller]

From: "H. Peter Anvin" 
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:51:43 -0800

> Is there a sensible way we can fix this in either net-next or tip?

I think if I sort the files in net-next the problem will go away,
if someone can confirm this I'll do it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi,

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:51:43 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin"  wrote:
>
> On 01/13/2014 07:02 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:20:59 +1100 Stephen Rothwell  
> > wrote:
> >> 
> >> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:18:24 +1100 Stephen Rothwell 
> >>  wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got conflicts in 
> >>> arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild, arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild, 
> >>> arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild,
> >>> arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild, 
> >>> arch/parisc/include/asm/Kbuild and
> >>> arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild between commit e3fec2f74f7f
> >>> ("lib: Add missing arch generic-y entries for 
> >>> asm-generic/hash.h") from the net-next tree and commit
> >>> 93ea02bb8435 ("arch: Clean up asm/barrier.h implementations
> >>> using asm-generic/barrier.h") from the tip tree.
> >>> 
> >>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
> >>> (no action is required).
> >>> 
> >>> BTW: thanks for not keeping the Kbuild files sorted :-(
> >> 
> >> I missed arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild the first time round.
> > 
> > And ... git rerere does not work well here.  It stores resolutions
> > by a hash of the (sanitised) conflict and since most of these files
> > have exactly the same conflict, I am going to have to edit 5 of
> > them by hand every day.
> > 
> 
> Well, you probably can keep a diff from the conflict-merge tree to the
> fix, but still.
> 
> Is there a sensible way we can fix this in either net-next or tip?

Probably not now.  If the respective patches had kept those Kbuild files
sorted, then (most of the) conflicts would not have happened.

Maybe if there were follow up patches that put them back in order it may
help.  Or at least maybe make the conflicts different enough so that
git rerere would store them all.

I am just grumbling because I guessed this would happen when I saw the
patch go into the next-next tree (unfortunately, it was a report of mine
that caused that patch to be created :-().
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpTdpTuhsVtS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 01/13/2014 07:02 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:20:59 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
>  wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:18:24 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got conflicts in 
>>> arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild, arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild, 
>>> arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild,
>>> arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild, 
>>> arch/parisc/include/asm/Kbuild and
>>> arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild between commit e3fec2f74f7f
>>> ("lib: Add missing arch generic-y entries for 
>>> asm-generic/hash.h") from the net-next tree and commit
>>> 93ea02bb8435 ("arch: Clean up asm/barrier.h implementations
>>> using asm-generic/barrier.h") from the tip tree.
>>> 
>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
>>> (no action is required).
>>> 
>>> BTW: thanks for not keeping the Kbuild files sorted :-(
>> 
>> I missed arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild the first time round.
> 
> And ... git rerere does not work well here.  It stores resolutions
> by a hash of the (sanitised) conflict and since most of these files
> have exactly the same conflict, I am going to have to edit 5 of
> them by hand every day.
> 

Well, you probably can keep a diff from the conflict-merge tree to the
fix, but still.

Is there a sensible way we can fix this in either net-next or tip?

-hpa


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:20:59 +1100 Stephen Rothwell  
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:18:24 +1100 Stephen Rothwell  
> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got conflicts in
> > arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild, arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild,
> > arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild, arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild,
> > arch/parisc/include/asm/Kbuild and arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild between
> > commit e3fec2f74f7f ("lib: Add missing arch generic-y entries for
> > asm-generic/hash.h") from the net-next tree and commit 93ea02bb8435
> > ("arch: Clean up asm/barrier.h implementations using
> > asm-generic/barrier.h") from the tip tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> > is required).
> > 
> > BTW: thanks for not keeping the Kbuild files sorted :-(
> 
> I missed arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild the first time round.

And ... git rerere does not work well here.  It stores resolutions by a
hash of the (sanitised) conflict and since most of these files have
exactly the same conflict, I am going to have to edit 5 of them by hand
every day.

Not happy :-(

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpoYZNo3wpW1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:20:59 +1100 Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au 
wrote:

 On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:18:24 +1100 Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au 
 wrote:
 
  Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got conflicts in
  arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild, arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild,
  arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild, arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild,
  arch/parisc/include/asm/Kbuild and arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild between
  commit e3fec2f74f7f (lib: Add missing arch generic-y entries for
  asm-generic/hash.h) from the net-next tree and commit 93ea02bb8435
  (arch: Clean up asm/barrier.h implementations using
  asm-generic/barrier.h) from the tip tree.
  
  I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
  is required).
  
  BTW: thanks for not keeping the Kbuild files sorted :-(
 
 I missed arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild the first time round.

And ... git rerere does not work well here.  It stores resolutions by a
hash of the (sanitised) conflict and since most of these files have
exactly the same conflict, I am going to have to edit 5 of them by hand
every day.

Not happy :-(

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpoYZNo3wpW1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 01/13/2014 07:02 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:20:59 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
 s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote:
 
 On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:18:24 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
 s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote:
 
 Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got conflicts in 
 arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild, arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild, 
 arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild,
 arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild, 
 arch/parisc/include/asm/Kbuild and
 arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild between commit e3fec2f74f7f
 (lib: Add missing arch generic-y entries for 
 asm-generic/hash.h) from the net-next tree and commit
 93ea02bb8435 (arch: Clean up asm/barrier.h implementations
 using asm-generic/barrier.h) from the tip tree.
 
 I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
 (no action is required).
 
 BTW: thanks for not keeping the Kbuild files sorted :-(
 
 I missed arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild the first time round.
 
 And ... git rerere does not work well here.  It stores resolutions
 by a hash of the (sanitised) conflict and since most of these files
 have exactly the same conflict, I am going to have to edit 5 of
 them by hand every day.
 

Well, you probably can keep a diff from the conflict-merge tree to the
fix, but still.

Is there a sensible way we can fix this in either net-next or tip?

-hpa


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi,

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:51:43 -0800 H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:

 On 01/13/2014 07:02 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
  
  On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:20:59 +1100 Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au 
  wrote:
  
  On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:18:24 +1100 Stephen Rothwell 
  s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote:
  
  Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got conflicts in 
  arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild, arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild, 
  arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild,
  arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild, 
  arch/parisc/include/asm/Kbuild and
  arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild between commit e3fec2f74f7f
  (lib: Add missing arch generic-y entries for 
  asm-generic/hash.h) from the net-next tree and commit
  93ea02bb8435 (arch: Clean up asm/barrier.h implementations
  using asm-generic/barrier.h) from the tip tree.
  
  I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
  (no action is required).
  
  BTW: thanks for not keeping the Kbuild files sorted :-(
  
  I missed arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild the first time round.
  
  And ... git rerere does not work well here.  It stores resolutions
  by a hash of the (sanitised) conflict and since most of these files
  have exactly the same conflict, I am going to have to edit 5 of
  them by hand every day.
  
 
 Well, you probably can keep a diff from the conflict-merge tree to the
 fix, but still.
 
 Is there a sensible way we can fix this in either net-next or tip?

Probably not now.  If the respective patches had kept those Kbuild files
sorted, then (most of the) conflicts would not have happened.

Maybe if there were follow up patches that put them back in order it may
help.  Or at least maybe make the conflicts different enough so that
git rerere would store them all.

I am just grumbling because I guessed this would happen when I saw the
patch go into the next-next tree (unfortunately, it was a report of mine
that caused that patch to be created :-().
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpTdpTuhsVtS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[David Miller]

From: H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:51:43 -0800

 Is there a sensible way we can fix this in either net-next or tip?

I think if I sort the files in net-next the problem will go away,
if someone can confirm this I'll do it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:19:46 -0800 (PST) David Miller da...@davemloft.net 
wrote:

 From: H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com
 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:51:43 -0800
 
  Is there a sensible way we can fix this in either net-next or tip?
 
 I think if I sort the files in net-next the problem will go away,
 if someone can confirm this I'll do it.

I have attached 2 patches: one for net-next and one for tip/auto-latest
(but should be applicable in the appropriate topic branch).  If both are
applied to their respect trees, then I get no conflict when merging the
two trees.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
From da6b3ed2f43d1a0c5e946d11902c167eb6188cca Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:37:45 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] net: resort some Kbuild files to hopefully help avoid some
 conflicts

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
---
 arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild| 2 +-
 arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild   | 2 +-
 arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild| 2 +-
 arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild | 2 +-
 arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild| 2 +-
 arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild  | 2 +-
 6 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild
index 93e6ca919620..cf29d84fd9c2 100644
--- a/arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild
+++ b/arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ generic-y += fcntl.h
 generic-y += fb.h
 generic-y += ftrace.h
 generic-y += hardirq.h
+generic-y += hash.h
 generic-y += hw_irq.h
 generic-y += ioctl.h
 generic-y += ioctls.h
@@ -47,4 +48,3 @@ generic-y += user.h
 generic-y += vga.h
 generic-y += xor.h
 generic-y += preempt.h
-generic-y += hash.h
diff --git a/arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild
index c5963b3e4624..406cbd3ebd58 100644
--- a/arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild
+++ b/arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild
@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ header-y += arch-v32/
 
 generic-y += clkdev.h
 generic-y += exec.h
+generic-y += hash.h
 generic-y += kvm_para.h
 generic-y += linkage.h
 generic-y += module.h
@@ -12,4 +13,3 @@ generic-y += trace_clock.h
 generic-y += vga.h
 generic-y += xor.h
 generic-y += preempt.h
-generic-y += hash.h
diff --git a/arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild
index 469d223950ff..ae45d75a3187 100644
--- a/arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild
+++ b/arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ generic-y += fb.h
 generic-y += fcntl.h
 generic-y += ftrace.h
 generic-y += hardirq.h
+generic-y += hash.h
 generic-y += hw_irq.h
 generic-y += ioctl.h
 generic-y += ioctls.h
@@ -54,4 +55,3 @@ generic-y += ucontext.h
 generic-y += unaligned.h
 generic-y += xor.h
 generic-y += preempt.h
-generic-y += hash.h
diff --git a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild
index 43eec338ff50..ca60945ddf30 100644
--- a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild
+++ b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 
 generic-y += clkdev.h
 generic-y += exec.h
+generic-y += hash.h
 generic-y += trace_clock.h
 generic-y += syscalls.h
 generic-y += preempt.h
-generic-y += hash.h
diff --git a/arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild
index bc42f14c9c2e..199345207d82 100644
--- a/arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild
+++ b/arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 
 generic-y += clkdev.h
 generic-y += exec.h
+generic-y += hash.h
 generic-y += trace_clock.h
 generic-y += preempt.h
-generic-y += hash.h
diff --git a/arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild
index 099e7ba40599..1d35e33ccf86 100644
--- a/arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild
+++ b/arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild
@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 header-y +=
 
 generic-y += clkdev.h
+generic-y += hash.h
 generic-y += trace_clock.h
 generic-y += xor.h
 generic-y += preempt.h
-generic-y += hash.h
 
-- 
1.8.5.2

From 6d0a3746f35cb879189228093728251b7ce04135 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:36:10 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] tip: resort some Kbuild files to hopefully help avoid some
 conflicts

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
---
 arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild| 2 +-
 arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild   | 2 +-
 arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild| 2 +-
 arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild | 2 +-
 arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild| 2 +-
 arch/parisc/include/asm/Kbuild | 2 +-
 arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild  | 2 +-
 7 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild
index e07c786011af..9ae21c198007 100644
--- a/arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild
+++ b/arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 generic-y += auxvec.h
+generic-y += barrier.h
 generic-y += bugs.h
 generic-y += bitsperlong.h
 generic-y += clkdev.h
@@ -47,4 +48,3 @@ generic-y += user.h
 generic-y += vga.h
 generic-y += xor.h
 generic-y += preempt.h
-generic-y += barrier.h
diff --git 

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

[David Miller]

From: Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:44:20 +1100

 On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:19:46 -0800 (PST) David Miller da...@davemloft.net 
 wrote:

 From: H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com
 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:51:43 -0800
 
  Is there a sensible way we can fix this in either net-next or tip?
 
 I think if I sort the files in net-next the problem will go away,
 if someone can confirm this I'll do it.
 
 I have attached 2 patches: one for net-next and one for tip/auto-latest
 (but should be applicable in the appropriate topic branch).  If both are
 applied to their respect trees, then I get no conflict when merging the
 two trees.

Net patch applied, thanks Stephen.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Dave,

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:48:41 -0800 (PST) David Miller da...@davemloft.net 
wrote:

 Net patch applied, thanks Stephen.

Thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpLeAmu5C984.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:18:24 +1100 Stephen Rothwell  
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got conflicts in
> arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild, arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild,
> arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild, arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild,
> arch/parisc/include/asm/Kbuild and arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild between
> commit e3fec2f74f7f ("lib: Add missing arch generic-y entries for
> asm-generic/hash.h") from the net-next tree and commit 93ea02bb8435
> ("arch: Clean up asm/barrier.h implementations using
> asm-generic/barrier.h") from the tip tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> is required).
> 
> BTW: thanks for not keeping the Kbuild files sorted :-(

I missed arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild the first time round.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild
index bc42f14c9c2e,367ef399ddf7..
--- a/arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild
+++ b/arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild
@@@ -1,6 -1,6 +1,7 @@@
  
++generic-y += barrier.h
  generic-y += clkdev.h
  generic-y += exec.h
++generic-y += hash.h
  generic-y += trace_clock.h
  generic-y += preempt.h
- generic-y += hash.h
 -generic-y += barrier.h


pgphVTkMMq45W.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:18:24 +1100 Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au 
wrote:

 Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got conflicts in
 arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild, arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild,
 arch/hexagon/include/asm/Kbuild, arch/microblaze/include/asm/Kbuild,
 arch/parisc/include/asm/Kbuild and arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild between
 commit e3fec2f74f7f (lib: Add missing arch generic-y entries for
 asm-generic/hash.h) from the net-next tree and commit 93ea02bb8435
 (arch: Clean up asm/barrier.h implementations using
 asm-generic/barrier.h) from the tip tree.
 
 I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
 is required).
 
 BTW: thanks for not keeping the Kbuild files sorted :-(

I missed arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild the first time round.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild
index bc42f14c9c2e,367ef399ddf7..
--- a/arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild
+++ b/arch/mn10300/include/asm/Kbuild
@@@ -1,6 -1,6 +1,7 @@@
  
++generic-y += barrier.h
  generic-y += clkdev.h
  generic-y += exec.h
++generic-y += hash.h
  generic-y += trace_clock.h
  generic-y += preempt.h
- generic-y += hash.h
 -generic-y += barrier.h


pgphVTkMMq45W.pgp
Description: PGP signature