From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [GIT] Networking Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 23:15:20 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20171115.203352.827797930375567595.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: David Miller , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Network Development , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ast@kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:45322 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758098AbdKOWPa (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:15:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/15/2017 09:19 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:33 AM, David Miller wrote: >> >> Highlights: > > Lowlights: > > 1) it duplicated a commit from the hrtimer tree, which had been > cleaned up and rewritten, but then merging the second copy of the > commit re-introduced the bad code that had been cleaned up. > > I'm talking about commits > > - 7d9285e82db5: > perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() interface, a.k.a. > "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers" > - 97562633bcba > bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers > > where apparently there was no discussion between the groups about the > subsequent changes. > > And this must have shown up in linux-next as a conflict, but no > mention of it from either the perf event tree or the networking tree > merge. > > Although it is of course possible that depending on merge order, the > problem never showed up in next. Sorry about that, it was discussed that the patch in [1] would get routed through net-next and again cherry-picked from tracing folks due to conflicting changes in perf event tree that were being worked on to avoid later merge conflicts - clearly that didn't give the desired result. There was a subsequent discussion in [2] but not sure if cherry-picking 0d3d73aac2ff ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping") into net-next would have made it better or worse. We'll have a bpf sub-tree up and running soon for the next development cycle that can be pulled from by different parties when needed; potentially this could reduce such conflicts between trees in future. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks, Daniel [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/821919/ [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/1/53