From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-171.mta0.migadu.com (out-171.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00AB931BCAE for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2026 08:51:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781686286; cv=none; b=K442HPsWfuSfcHRsLs8vfc8dvZZr/MMcYanlzr1n/oTN1mFPhnURJQ/ACoBnHHquQU77bYPW7IuRi9JM6Wx9pTVqmKo3dv2d8ozaEiS/lbzIwfrNleW2G8higlcpT5dJXwmb/QwhPry3yD/2x9plNLcMhugrsBzG1w4bXEiugEQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781686286; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7jOQwyTAzKJwsqIrwI4rqGiIXyGQCVHuD/4hW50+EoA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=VsYv0D8GtG8qyIu0kpic5NUYrrrfmQMov4+tSw1d94o61PhoygA4jC+qp55uqktism5TakKnkaSUpVYwFBjJYoVAJrZNQboiiuQcVPd44W0/F5IAGnDJbCLG73Bw2GljecTSQsqxXPlz8+4w/uudNzwNUuLO+H/ovEldOvN1JFs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=eyTjndhm; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.171 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="eyTjndhm" Message-ID: <1c178c2f-358c-4933-b74e-36522f699f71@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1781686282; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=SU5qvsh3dMUY4+ATFzYh4gkQERaGRrV6gNprJHKVvNE=; b=eyTjndhmJusNq1s7n6ec7rr+66OBzuuVglHQfJDchQSE9hWPLcVwz0XAEhfM9TlHCs/DGu akC+RYMZX8y06LnEIpLPHY9aGrtINWawFAeP8qheeLfm9yh5W06aUkYU80ZGInxqQpMCW0 W0upzlr/mXGA/YUaBN9JU3vMdI1A/Fs= Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2026 16:51:12 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] BPF changes for 7.2 To: Linus Torvalds , Alexei Starovoitov , Jakub Kicinski , Yiming Qian , Zhang Cen , Han Guidong <2045gemini@gmail.com> Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, memxor@gmail.com, eddyz87@gmail.com, tj@kernel.org References: <20260615180858.15938-1-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Jiayuan Chen In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 6/17/26 4:37 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 at 19:09, Alexei Starovoitov > wrote: >> There are two conflicts: > Actually, since I ended up doing things a bit out of order and did the > networking pull first, there were three conflicts, and while the two > you mentioned were trivial, the one to net/core/filter.c was a bit > different. Both networking and bpf had done "make sure to preserve the > sg.copy" bits, but done it quite differently. > > And I think bpf did some things better, and the networking tree did > other things better, so my resolution is actually a mix of the two. > > bpf had nicely named helper functions. > > And the networking version used __assign_bit() instead of duplicating that > > if (set) > set_bit > else > clear_bit > > pattern. > > So my resolution is to take a bit from column A, and a bit from column B. > > And the networking tree had a case of clearing the sg.copy fields (in > bpf_msg_pull_data()) that the bpf tree didn't have at all - but I took > the nicer helper function from the bpf side. > > Did I get everything right? It _looks_ right to me, and better than > either side on their own. But mistakes happen. Please check out my > resolution and send me fixes from whatever I may have messed up. > > It doesn't help that I did this on my laptop while traveling - I hate > not having my big monitors and better test build environment, but I > tried to be careful, and it builds for me in my limited test > environment. > > Please give it a good once-over - I've cc'd everybody involved on both > sides of the conflicting changes. > > Linus Thanks, Linus. I was just trying to figure out how to send a patch to avoid this merge conflict. The resolution looks correct to me. One tiny thing: the call to sk_msg_set_elem_copy() in sk_msg_sg_move() has a trailing tab — it doesn't matter at all, and I'll clean it up next time I touch that code. Sorry for the inconvenience.