linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next, sysctl trees

Stephen Rothwell posted 1 patch 4 years ago
linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next, sysctl trees
Posted by Stephen Rothwell 4 years ago
Hi all,

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

  kernel/sysctl.c

between commit:

  2900005ea287 ("bpf: Move BPF sysctls from kernel/sysctl.c to BPF core")

from the bpf-next, sysctl trees and commit:

  efaa0227f6c6 ("timers: Move timer sysctl into the timer code")

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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc kernel/sysctl.c
index 47139877f62d,5b7b1a82ae6a..000000000000
--- a/kernel/sysctl.c
+++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
@@@ -2227,17 -2288,24 +2227,6 @@@ static struct ctl_table kern_table[] = 
  		.extra1		= SYSCTL_ZERO,
  		.extra2		= SYSCTL_ONE,
  	},
- #if defined(CONFIG_SMP) && defined(CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON)
 -#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
--	{
- 		.procname	= "timer_migration",
- 		.data		= &sysctl_timer_migration,
- 		.maxlen		= sizeof(unsigned int),
 -		.procname	= "unprivileged_bpf_disabled",
 -		.data		= &sysctl_unprivileged_bpf_disabled,
 -		.maxlen		= sizeof(sysctl_unprivileged_bpf_disabled),
--		.mode		= 0644,
- 		.proc_handler	= timer_migration_handler,
 -		.proc_handler	= bpf_unpriv_handler,
--		.extra1		= SYSCTL_ZERO,
- 		.extra2		= SYSCTL_ONE,
 -		.extra2		= SYSCTL_TWO,
 -	},
 -	{
 -		.procname	= "bpf_stats_enabled",
 -		.data		= &bpf_stats_enabled_key.key,
 -		.maxlen		= sizeof(bpf_stats_enabled_key),
 -		.mode		= 0644,
 -		.proc_handler	= bpf_stats_handler,
--	},
--#endif
  #if defined(CONFIG_TREE_RCU)
  	{
  		.procname	= "panic_on_rcu_stall",
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next, sysctl trees
Posted by Stephen Rothwell 3 years, 11 months ago
Hi all,

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:29:05 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   kernel/sysctl.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   2900005ea287 ("bpf: Move BPF sysctls from kernel/sysctl.c to BPF core")
> 
> from the bpf-next, sysctl trees and commit:
> 
>   efaa0227f6c6 ("timers: Move timer sysctl into the timer code")
> 
> 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.
> 
> diff --cc kernel/sysctl.c
> index 47139877f62d,5b7b1a82ae6a..000000000000
> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
> +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
> @@@ -2227,17 -2288,24 +2227,6 @@@ static struct ctl_table kern_table[] = 
>   		.extra1		= SYSCTL_ZERO,
>   		.extra2		= SYSCTL_ONE,
>   	},
> - #if defined(CONFIG_SMP) && defined(CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON)
>  -#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> --	{
> - 		.procname	= "timer_migration",
> - 		.data		= &sysctl_timer_migration,
> - 		.maxlen		= sizeof(unsigned int),
>  -		.procname	= "unprivileged_bpf_disabled",
>  -		.data		= &sysctl_unprivileged_bpf_disabled,
>  -		.maxlen		= sizeof(sysctl_unprivileged_bpf_disabled),
> --		.mode		= 0644,
> - 		.proc_handler	= timer_migration_handler,
>  -		.proc_handler	= bpf_unpriv_handler,
> --		.extra1		= SYSCTL_ZERO,
> - 		.extra2		= SYSCTL_ONE,
>  -		.extra2		= SYSCTL_TWO,
>  -	},
>  -	{
>  -		.procname	= "bpf_stats_enabled",
>  -		.data		= &bpf_stats_enabled_key.key,
>  -		.maxlen		= sizeof(bpf_stats_enabled_key),
>  -		.mode		= 0644,
>  -		.proc_handler	= bpf_stats_handler,
> --	},
> --#endif
>   #if defined(CONFIG_TREE_RCU)
>   	{
>   		.procname	= "panic_on_rcu_stall",

This is now a conflict between the tip tree and the net-next and sysctl trees.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell