From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.ozlabs.org (gandalf.ozlabs.org [150.107.74.76]) (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 3888034545; Wed, 10 Jul 2024 03:26:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=150.107.74.76 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720582002; cv=none; b=IEYYwnG+7XiUQT4DImYxSBmMOU0BIQyzmgx61cTe6cZM15dIXhOUSywNeGR3HGYG575Bv6XCnzVdg/veRlMNdf4pQHqQmhnOW3e10XwYYRk4zPQiHfFSSTEOgn/8QMKLoHP9xk5qUxsbg448rrkUEZgRVeJkMJVUKvSyFIOfum8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720582002; c=relaxed/simple; bh=aeqJOl5Yl0RUvum8cHOjzEIUVNycs/Tpazowq47HRV4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JrG0vicSo7wKFk/IANukoDd0u2iMQTy+K8H1FdywpZs4bkUea9kuRACR3pTQcRkPpD19CinHVj6JGiB/fps5+Hkn+d8eKF8KfTbLAVBOLPtzj2eB/cMuE6cz/DemaTUYZ3R8hI/Sq4xCsO85ehD7uXhD9421+p26b2LWPnHRubY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=canb.auug.org.au; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=canb.auug.org.au; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=canb.auug.org.au header.i=@canb.auug.org.au header.b=doDKRHqV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=150.107.74.76 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=canb.auug.org.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=canb.auug.org.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=canb.auug.org.au header.i=@canb.auug.org.au header.b="doDKRHqV" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=canb.auug.org.au; s=201702; t=1720581995; bh=bxCCY4MP0XLcRCW/XoCR+a4wcMvC/waROLeyouNvbag=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=doDKRHqV/BAhZKcssS/Z2OGsWP+TiQ+YqiIHgIHqjuEYJojIvho3twX4b5FEFB3TJ t82Zw2T2P3Zcpg7DL3LtdQb+f1QqQLprmQ5jQyH1MyoensE5n07WEeWvFESOfvuL7c M1krt9nRib9YAV238uQchzUhx3ELGNtb+kX7fUci9MZ4hg1yIUNeWx7cxK8pcw61Ny x6j5kgXKIWNV6UdBpO/54SUWHW1631KzqvjBgZQqIl2P990Vqm3OOJfNDD/TeBKz5e WteL6ebh2cFUccdQgl/Afe72pe9/lgnlKeDhQtkXd6lb3ghRK4VnjWugYZlD41VmLD jOt6FLZeRjmYQ== Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4WJjvC2p47z4w2M; Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:26:30 +1000 (AEST) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:26:29 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Palmer Dabbelt , Paul Walmsley , David Miller , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni Cc: Daniel Borkmann , Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , bpf , Networking , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List , Palmer Dabbelt , Pu Lehui , Samuel Holland Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the risc-v tree Message-ID: <20240710132629.781c55e4@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20240702113350.064e4cf2@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20240702113350.064e4cf2@canb.auug.org.au> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/8KjxN1GIrCEjWs4920ztDGg"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 --Sig_/8KjxN1GIrCEjWs4920ztDGg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 11:33:50 +1000 Stephen Rothwell w= rote: >=20 > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in: >=20 > arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c >=20 > between commit: >=20 > 51781ce8f448 ("riscv: Pass patch_text() the length in bytes") >=20 > from the risc-v tree and commit: >=20 > 9f1e16fb1fc9 ("riscv, bpf: Fix out-of-bounds issue when preparing tramp= oline image") >=20 > from the bpf-next tree. >=20 > 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. >=20 > --=20 > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell >=20 > diff --cc arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c > index 7a34e5b44fc4,351e1484205e..000000000000 > --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c > @@@ -16,7 -16,8 +16,9 @@@ > #include "bpf_jit.h" > =20 > #define RV_FENTRY_NINSNS 2 > +#define RV_FENTRY_NBYTES (RV_FENTRY_NINSNS * 4) > + /* imm that allows emit_imm to emit max count insns */ > + #define RV_MAX_COUNT_IMM 0x7FFF7FF7FF7FF7FF > =20 > #define RV_REG_TCC RV_REG_A6 > #define RV_REG_TCC_SAVED RV_REG_S6 /* Store A6 in S6 if program do call= s */ This is now a conflict between the risc-v tree and the net-next tree. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell --Sig_/8KjxN1GIrCEjWs4920ztDGg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAmaN/2UACgkQAVBC80lX 0GxP8gf+ObtQabtoR5ITWclxezEcTHCn5ST/fPMlmAlOvDok4XYq7HMa3aUNdC+T WpFlY7p1WBBVXmS/bUBkxXBALN0gC78BA8OsxtNN21fwAcZp1BnfJyF++Dnwjnh/ +9EzX6rdlei2O7ZkqLo6GsCDySiT7voha5Dja4OdRdjnZJzS1y6qotaFNQmh+5TS qkTIHaZEkKNjBj+L+rTtPRyQP4BaBpcEaFn/cWMXt2S0w3X8QstsxJ0MofcwfDOh 2eER+DSyNSUKZ6aOIvdjTOJJxVVZ+Ys4ljdFgNu52sW6MHaR3KtWAT+8wnt3UQJp sDH5NKL4gsST4k58OkxzqQ3DlXI9+Q== =2Zgm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/8KjxN1GIrCEjWs4920ztDGg--