Thread (2 messages) 2 messages, 1 author, 2025-12-03

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

From: Stephen Rothwell <hidden>
Date: 2025-12-03 02:35:24
Also in: bpf, linux-next, lkml

Hi all,

On Wed, 5 Nov 2025 13:31:59 +1100 Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:

  kernel/bpf/stackmap.c

between commit:

  e17d62fedd10 ("bpf: Refactor stack map trace depth calculation into helper function")

from the bpf-next tree and commit:

  c69993ecdd4d ("perf: Support deferred user unwind")

from the tip 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/stackmap.c
index 2365541c81dd,8f1dacaf01fe..000000000000
--- a/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c
@@@ -333,9 -310,12 +333,9 @@@ BPF_CALL_3(bpf_get_stackid, struct pt_r
  			       BPF_F_FAST_STACK_CMP | BPF_F_REUSE_STACKID)))
  		return -EINVAL;
  
 -	max_depth += skip;
 -	if (max_depth > sysctl_perf_event_max_stack)
 -		max_depth = sysctl_perf_event_max_stack;
 -
 +	max_depth = stack_map_calculate_max_depth(map->value_size, elem_size, flags);
  	trace = get_perf_callchain(regs, kernel, user, max_depth,
- 				   false, false);
+ 				   false, false, 0);
  
  	if (unlikely(!trace))
  		/* couldn't fetch the stack trace */
@@@ -463,15 -446,13 +463,15 @@@ static long __bpf_get_stack(struct pt_r
  	if (may_fault)
  		rcu_read_lock(); /* need RCU for perf's callchain below */
  
 -	if (trace_in)
 +	if (trace_in) {
  		trace = trace_in;
 -	else if (kernel && task)
 +		trace->nr = min_t(u32, trace->nr, max_depth);
 +	} else if (kernel && task) {
  		trace = get_callchain_entry_for_task(task, max_depth);
 -	else
 +	} else {
  		trace = get_perf_callchain(regs, kernel, user, max_depth,
- 					   crosstask, false);
+ 					   crosstask, false, 0);
 +	}
  
  	if (unlikely(!trace) || trace->nr < skip) {
  		if (may_fault)
This is now a conflict between the bpf-next tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Attachments

  • (unnamed) [application/pgp-signature] 488 bytes
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help