Hi all,

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

  kernel/bpf/btf.c

between commit:

  5da7e15fb5a1 ("net: Add rx_skb of kfree_skb to raw_tp_null_args[].")

from the bpf tree and commit:

  c83e2d970bae ("bpf: Add tracepoints with null-able arguments")

from the bpf-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 kernel/bpf/btf.c
index c3223e0db2f5,f8335bdc8bf8..000000000000
--- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
@@@ -6507,8 -6505,8 +6505,10 @@@ static const struct bpf_raw_tp_null_arg
  	/* rxrpc */
  	{ "rxrpc_recvdata", 0x1 },
  	{ "rxrpc_resend", 0x10 },
+ 	{ "rxrpc_tq", 0x10 },
+ 	{ "rxrpc_client", 0x1 },
 +	/* skb */
 +	{"kfree_skb", 0x1000},
  	/* sunrpc */
  	{ "xs_stream_read_data", 0x1 },
  	/* ... from xprt_cong_event event class */

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 9:07 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>   kernel/bpf/btf.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   5da7e15fb5a1 ("net: Add rx_skb of kfree_skb to raw_tp_null_args[].")
>
> from the bpf tree and commit:
>
>   c83e2d970bae ("bpf: Add tracepoints with null-able arguments")
>
> from the bpf-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.

Thanks for headsup.

Jiri,
what should we do ?
I feel that moving c83e2d970bae into bpf tree would be the best ?

Pls warn me next time of conflicts.

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 09:33:11PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 9:07 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   kernel/bpf/btf.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   5da7e15fb5a1 ("net: Add rx_skb of kfree_skb to raw_tp_null_args[].")
> >
> > from the bpf tree and commit:
> >
> >   c83e2d970bae ("bpf: Add tracepoints with null-able arguments")
> >
> > from the bpf-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.
> 
> Thanks for headsup.
> 
> Jiri,
> what should we do ?
> I feel that moving c83e2d970bae into bpf tree would be the best ?

right, bpf tree would have been better fit for that.. should I resend that for bpf tree?

> 
> Pls warn me next time of conflicts.

will do

jirka

On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 1:12 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 09:33:11PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 9:07 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > >   kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > >   5da7e15fb5a1 ("net: Add rx_skb of kfree_skb to raw_tp_null_args[].")
> > >
> > > from the bpf tree and commit:
> > >
> > >   c83e2d970bae ("bpf: Add tracepoints with null-able arguments")
> > >
> > > from the bpf-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.
> >
> > Thanks for headsup.
> >
> > Jiri,
> > what should we do ?
> > I feel that moving c83e2d970bae into bpf tree would be the best ?
>
> right, bpf tree would have been better fit for that.. should I resend that for bpf tree?

After sleeping on it I guess it's fine as-is.
When bpf tree gets pulled we will merge Linus's tree and resolve that
conflict way before the merge window.

Hi Alexei,

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:33:11 -0800 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> what should we do ?
> I feel that moving c83e2d970bae into bpf tree would be the best ?

Just remember to mention the conflict to whomever merges the bpf-next
tree towards Linus' tree.  Its a trivial conflict.  Or merge the bpf
tree into the bpf-next tree if you feel that you need the bug fixes in
the bpf-next tree as well.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell