Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree

Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1270 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:52:58 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 9:45 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's presumably not in any of the pull requests I already have
> > > pending, but it would be nice if I saw some details of _what_ you are
> > > complaining about, and not just the complaint itself ;)  
> >
> > Duh, right. It's this series:
> >
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/164757541675.26179.17727138330733641017.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org/
> >
> > That went into bpf-next last Friday. I just checked but haven't found a
> > pull for it yet.  
> 
> Thanks. I can confirm it's not in any of the pull requests I have
> pending, so I'll just start doing my normal work and try to remember
> to look out for this issue later.

The normal path for bpf-next code is via the net-next tree.  But the
above series has not yet been merged into the net-next tree so is only
in the bpf-next tree.

So, what am I to do?  Drop the bpf-next tree from linux-next until this
is resolved?  Some input from the BPF people would be useful.

Dave, Jakub, please do not merge the bpf-bext tree into the net-next
tree for now.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 3:05 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:52:58 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 9:45 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's presumably not in any of the pull requests I already have
> > > > pending, but it would be nice if I saw some details of _what_ you are
> > > > complaining about, and not just the complaint itself ;)
> > >
> > > Duh, right. It's this series:
> > >
> > >   https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/164757541675.26179.17727138330733641017.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org/
> > >
> > > That went into bpf-next last Friday. I just checked but haven't found a
> > > pull for it yet.
> >
> > Thanks. I can confirm it's not in any of the pull requests I have
> > pending, so I'll just start doing my normal work and try to remember
> > to look out for this issue later.
>
> The normal path for bpf-next code is via the net-next tree.  But the
> above series has not yet been merged into the net-next tree so is only
> in the bpf-next tree.
>
> So, what am I to do?  Drop the bpf-next tree from linux-next until this
> is resolved?  Some input from the BPF people would be useful.
>
> Dave, Jakub, please do not merge the bpf-bext tree into the net-next
> tree for now.

That makes little sense. It's not an unusual merge conflict.
Peter's endbr series conflict with Masami's fprobe.
Peter has a trivial patch that fixes objtool warning.
The question is how to land that patch.
I think the best is for Linus to apply it after bpf-next->net-next gets
merged.

We're preparing bpf-next PR right now.

Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 520 bytes --]

Hi Alexei,

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:12:05 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That makes little sense. It's not an unusual merge conflict.
> Peter's endbr series conflict with Masami's fprobe.
> Peter has a trivial patch that fixes objtool warning.
> The question is how to land that patch.
> I think the best is for Linus to apply it after bpf-next->net-next gets
> merged.

Peter has other concerns, please read the thread and consider them.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 3:46 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexei,
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:12:05 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That makes little sense. It's not an unusual merge conflict.
> > Peter's endbr series conflict with Masami's fprobe.
> > Peter has a trivial patch that fixes objtool warning.
> > The question is how to land that patch.
> > I think the best is for Linus to apply it after bpf-next->net-next gets
> > merged.
>
> Peter has other concerns, please read the thread and consider them.

Masami is an expert in kprobe. He copy pasted a bit of kprobe logic
to make it into 'multi kprobe' (he calls it fprobe).
I believe he knows what he's doing.
Steven reviewed and tested that set.
We've tested it as well and don't have any correctness or api concerns.

Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:50:17 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Peter has other concerns, please read the thread and consider them.  
> 
> Masami is an expert in kprobe. He copy pasted a bit of kprobe logic
> to make it into 'multi kprobe' (he calls it fprobe).
> I believe he knows what he's doing.
> Steven reviewed and tested that set.
> We've tested it as well and don't have any correctness or api concerns.

I tested it from a ftrace perspective, not an IBT or other work being done
in the x86 world.

I'm fine with the work being done in kernel/tracing/ but it still requires
the arch maintainer's acks for anything in arch/. I was under the
impression that the arch specific code was Cc'ing the arch maintainers
(which I always do when I touch their code). But I missed that they were
not. That's my fault, I should have caught that.

-- Steve

Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree

[Masami Hiramatsu]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:50:17 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 3:46 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alexei,
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:12:05 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > That makes little sense. It's not an unusual merge conflict.
> > > Peter's endbr series conflict with Masami's fprobe.
> > > Peter has a trivial patch that fixes objtool warning.
> > > The question is how to land that patch.
> > > I think the best is for Linus to apply it after bpf-next->net-next gets
> > > merged.
> >
> > Peter has other concerns, please read the thread and consider them.
> 
> Masami is an expert in kprobe. He copy pasted a bit of kprobe logic
> to make it into 'multi kprobe' (he calls it fprobe).
> I believe he knows what he's doing.
> Steven reviewed and tested that set.
> We've tested it as well and don't have any correctness or api concerns.

Sorry, that's my mistake to not Ccing to arch maintainers for the arch
dependent patches. Let me update and send v13 for this fprobe series.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 9:51 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:50:17 -0700
> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 3:46 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alexei,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:12:05 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That makes little sense. It's not an unusual merge conflict.
> > > > Peter's endbr series conflict with Masami's fprobe.
> > > > Peter has a trivial patch that fixes objtool warning.
> > > > The question is how to land that patch.
> > > > I think the best is for Linus to apply it after bpf-next->net-next gets
> > > > merged.
> > >
> > > Peter has other concerns, please read the thread and consider them.
> >
> > Masami is an expert in kprobe. He copy pasted a bit of kprobe logic
> > to make it into 'multi kprobe' (he calls it fprobe).
> > I believe he knows what he's doing.
> > Steven reviewed and tested that set.
> > We've tested it as well and don't have any correctness or api concerns.
>
> Sorry, that's my mistake to not Ccing to arch maintainers for the arch
> dependent patches. Let me update and send v13 for this fprobe series.

No. Please read what I've said earlier.

Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 03:12:05PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> 
> That makes little sense. It's not an unusual merge conflict.

It is not only that; it is adding code that with an x86 arch maintainer
hat on I've never seen and don't agree with. Same for arm64 apparently.