Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the arm64 tree

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 07/03/2017 03:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

Hi all,

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

   arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c

between commit:

   425e1ed73e65 ("arm64: fix endianness annotation for 'struct jit_ctx' and 
friends")

from the arm64 tree and commit:

   f1c9eed7f437 ("bpf, arm64: take advantage of stack_depth tracking")

from 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.


Looks good to me, thanks!

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the arm64 tree

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 05/17/2016 03:38 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 09:12:34AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:

On 05/17/2016 09:03 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
[...]

Someone's not gonna be happy with commit 606b5908 ("bpf: split
HAVE_BPF_JIT into cBPF and eBPF variant") breaking the sort order again...


Wasn't aware of that. Maybe I'm missing something, but there appears
to be no throughout consistent ordering ...

[...]
 select HAVE_PERF_REGS
 select HAVE_PERF_USER_STACK_DUMP
 select HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE
 select HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS
 select IOMMU_DMA if IOMMU_SUPPORT
 select IRQ_DOMAIN
 select IRQ_FORCED_THREADING
[...]
 select RTC_LIB
 select SPARSE_IRQ
 select SYSCTL_EXCEPTION_TRACE
 select HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING
 select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC
[...]


We keep fixing them as we merge other stuff. For example, latest
mainline has commit 8ee708792e1c ("arm64: Kconfig: remove redundant
HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE definition") which also fixes up the
Kconfig order.


Understood, thanks for the clarification (and sorry for the sort order
issue).

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the arm64 tree

[Catalin Marinas]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 09:12:34AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 05/17/2016 09:03 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> [...]
> >Someone's not gonna be happy with commit 606b5908 ("bpf: split
> >HAVE_BPF_JIT into cBPF and eBPF variant") breaking the sort order again...
> 
> Wasn't aware of that. Maybe I'm missing something, but there appears
> to be no throughout consistent ordering ...
> 
> [...]
> select HAVE_PERF_REGS
> select HAVE_PERF_USER_STACK_DUMP
> select HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE
> select HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS
> select IOMMU_DMA if IOMMU_SUPPORT
> select IRQ_DOMAIN
> select IRQ_FORCED_THREADING
> [...]
> select RTC_LIB
> select SPARSE_IRQ
> select SYSCTL_EXCEPTION_TRACE
> select HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING
> select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC
> [...]

We keep fixing them as we merge other stuff. For example, latest
mainline has commit 8ee708792e1c ("arm64: Kconfig: remove redundant
HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE definition") which also fixes up the
Kconfig order.

-- 
Catalin

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the arm64 tree

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 05/17/2016 09:03 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
[...]

Someone's not gonna be happy with commit 606b5908 ("bpf: split
HAVE_BPF_JIT into cBPF and eBPF variant") breaking the sort order again...


Wasn't aware of that. Maybe I'm missing something, but there appears
to be no throughout consistent ordering ...

[...]
select HAVE_PERF_REGS
select HAVE_PERF_USER_STACK_DUMP
select HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE
select HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS
select IOMMU_DMA if IOMMU_SUPPORT
select IRQ_DOMAIN
select IRQ_FORCED_THREADING
[...]
select RTC_LIB
select SPARSE_IRQ
select SYSCTL_EXCEPTION_TRACE
select HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING
select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC
[...]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the arm64 tree

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Stephen Rothwell  wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>   arch/arm64/Kconfig
>
> between commit:
>
>   8ee708792e1c ("arm64: Kconfig: remove redundant 
> HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE definition")
>
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
>
>   606b5908 ("bpf: split HAVE_BPF_JIT into cBPF and eBPF variant")
>
> from 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc arch/arm64/Kconfig
> index 8845c0d100d7,e6761ea2feec..
> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> @@@ -59,9 -58,7 +59,9 @@@ config ARM6
> select HAVE_ARCH_MMAP_RND_COMPAT_BITS if COMPAT
> select HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER
> select HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK
>  +  select HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
>  +  select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC
> -   select HAVE_BPF_JIT
> +   select HAVE_EBPF_JIT
> select HAVE_C_RECORDMCOUNT
> select HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
> select HAVE_CMPXCHG_DOUBLE

Someone's not gonna be happy with commit 606b5908 ("bpf: split
HAVE_BPF_JIT into cBPF and eBPF variant") breaking the sort order again...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the arm64 tree

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 05/17/2016 02:24 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

Hi all,

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

   arch/arm64/Kconfig

between commit:

   8ee708792e1c ("arm64: Kconfig: remove redundant HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE 
definition")

from the arm64 tree and commit:

   606b5908 ("bpf: split HAVE_BPF_JIT into cBPF and eBPF variant")

from 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 looks good, thanks!