linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the vfs-brauner tree

linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the vfs-brauner tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 795 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  fs/coda/inode.c

between commit:

  626c2be9822d ("coda: use param->file for FSCONFIG_SET_FD")

from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:

  1da91ea87aef ("introduce fd_file(), convert all accessors to it.")

from the bpf-next tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed the code modified by the latter, so I
used the former) 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

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the vfs-brauner tree

[Al Viro]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 10:56:29AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/coda/inode.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   626c2be9822d ("coda: use param->file for FSCONFIG_SET_FD")

FWIW, I'm not sure that FSCONFIG_SET_FD is a good idea, seeing
that it went without a single user for 6 years and this case
does not look convincing.

Oh, well - too late for that, by 8 years or so...

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the vfs-brauner tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 994 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 10:56:29 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/coda/inode.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   626c2be9822d ("coda: use param->file for FSCONFIG_SET_FD")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> 
>   1da91ea87aef ("introduce fd_file(), convert all accessors to it.")
> 
> from the bpf-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the former removed the code modified by the latter, so I
> used the former) 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.

This is now a conflict between the vfs tree and the vfs-branuer tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the vfs-brauner tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1676 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  kernel/bpf/helpers.c

between commit:

  535b070f4a80 ("bpf: Introduce bpf_cgroup_read_xattr to read xattr of cgroup's node")

from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:

  e91370550f1f ("bpf: Add kfuncs for read-only string operations")

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/helpers.c
index 9ff1b4090289,2cdcf7b2c91e..000000000000
--- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
@@@ -3397,9 -3768,17 +3768,20 @@@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_dmabuf_next
  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_dmabuf_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY | KF_SLEEPABLE)
  #endif
  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, __bpf_trap)
 +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUPS
 +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cgroup_read_xattr, KF_RCU)
 +#endif
+ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_strcmp);
+ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_strchr);
+ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_strchrnul);
+ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_strnchr);
+ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_strrchr);
+ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_strlen);
+ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_strnlen);
+ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_strspn);
+ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_strcspn);
+ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_strstr);
+ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_strnstr);
  BTF_KFUNCS_END(common_btf_ids)
  
  static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set common_kfunc_set = {

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the vfs-brauner tree

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 7:12 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/helpers.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   535b070f4a80 ("bpf: Introduce bpf_cgroup_read_xattr to read xattr of cgroup's node")
>
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
>
>   e91370550f1f ("bpf: Add kfuncs for read-only string operations")
>
> from the bpf-next tree.

Our emails raced in www :)
A minute ago merged vfs's branch into bpf-next/master,
resolved this conflict and pushed to /master and /for-next.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the vfs-brauner tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 306 bytes --]

Hi Alexei,

On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 19:17:25 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Our emails raced in www :)
> A minute ago merged vfs's branch into bpf-next/master,
> resolved this conflict and pushed to /master and /for-next.

Thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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