| Message ID | 20230307095812.236eb1be@canb.auug.org.au (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the bpf tree | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Not a local patch |
Hi all, On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 09:58:12 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in: > > Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst > > between commit: > > b7abcd9c656b ("bpf, doc: Link to submitting-patches.rst for general patch submission info") > > from the bpf tree and commit: > > d56b0c461d19 ("bpf, docs: Fix link to netdev-FAQ target") > > 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 Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst > index b421d94dc9f2,5f5f9ccc3862..000000000000 > --- a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst > +++ b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst > @@@ -684,8 -684,12 +684,8 @@@ when > > > .. Links > - .. _netdev-FAQ: Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > -.. _Documentation/process/: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/ > + .. _netdev-FAQ: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-netdev.html > .. _selftests: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ > -.. _Documentation/dev-tools/kselftest.rst: > - https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kselftest.html > -.. _Documentation/bpf/btf.rst: btf.rst > > Happy BPF hacking! This is now a conflict between the net-next tree and Linus' tree.
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 09:58:12AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in: > > Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst > > between commit: > > b7abcd9c656b ("bpf, doc: Link to submitting-patches.rst for general patch submission info") > > from the bpf tree and commit: > > d56b0c461d19 ("bpf, docs: Fix link to netdev-FAQ target") > > 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 Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst > index b421d94dc9f2,5f5f9ccc3862..000000000000 > --- a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst > +++ b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst > @@@ -684,8 -684,12 +684,8 @@@ when > > > .. Links > - .. _netdev-FAQ: Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > -.. _Documentation/process/: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/ > + .. _netdev-FAQ: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-netdev.html > .. _selftests: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ > -.. _Documentation/dev-tools/kselftest.rst: > - https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kselftest.html > -.. _Documentation/bpf/btf.rst: btf.rst > > Happy BPF hacking! I think the correct solution is to instead use internal link to netdev FAQ, to be consistent with my change in bpf tree: ---- >8 ---- diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst index 5f5f9ccc3862b4..e523991da9e0ce 100644 --- a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst +++ b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ into the bpf-next tree will make their way into net-next tree. net and net-next are both run by David S. Miller. From there, they will go into the kernel mainline tree run by Linus Torvalds. To read up on the process of net and net-next being merged into the mainline tree, see -the `netdev-FAQ`_. +the :doc:`netdev-FAQ </process/maintainer-netdev>`. @@ -147,7 +147,8 @@ request):: Q: How do I indicate which tree (bpf vs. bpf-next) my patch should be applied to? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -A: The process is the very same as described in the `netdev-FAQ`_, +A: The process is the very same as described in the +:doc:`netdev-FAQ </process/maintainer-netdev>`, so please read up on it. The subject line must indicate whether the patch is a fix or rather "next-like" content in order to let the maintainers know whether it is targeted at bpf or bpf-next. @@ -206,8 +207,8 @@ ii) run extensive BPF test suite and Once the BPF pull request was accepted by David S. Miller, then the patches end up in net or net-next tree, respectively, and make their way from there further into mainline. Again, see the -`netdev-FAQ`_ for additional information e.g. on how often they are -merged to mainline. +:doc:`netdev-FAQ </process/maintainer-netdev>` for additional +information e.g. on how often they are merged to mainline. Q: How long do I need to wait for feedback on my BPF patches? ------------------------------------------------------------- @@ -230,7 +231,8 @@ Q: Are patches applied to bpf-next when the merge window is open? ----------------------------------------------------------------- A: For the time when the merge window is open, bpf-next will not be processed. This is roughly analogous to net-next patch processing, -so feel free to read up on the `netdev-FAQ`_ about further details. +so feel free to read up on the +:doc:`netdev-FAQ </process/maintainer-netdev>` about further details. During those two weeks of merge window, we might ask you to resend your patch series once bpf-next is open again. Once Linus released @@ -394,7 +396,7 @@ netdev kernel mailing list in Cc and ask for the fix to be queued up: netdev@vger.kernel.org The process in general is the same as on netdev itself, see also the -`netdev-FAQ`_. +:doc:`netdev-FAQ </process/maintainer-netdev>`. Q: Do you also backport to kernels not currently maintained as stable? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @@ -410,7 +412,7 @@ Q: The BPF patch I am about to submit needs to go to stable as well What should I do? A: The same rules apply as with netdev patch submissions in general, see -the `netdev-FAQ`_. +the :doc:`netdev-FAQ </process/maintainer-netdev>`. Never add "``Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org``" to the patch description, but ask the BPF maintainers to queue the patches instead. This can be done @@ -685,7 +687,6 @@ when: .. Links .. _Documentation/process/: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/ -.. _netdev-FAQ: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-netdev.html .. _selftests: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ .. _Documentation/dev-tools/kselftest.rst: Thanks.
diff --cc Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst index b421d94dc9f2,5f5f9ccc3862..000000000000 --- a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in: Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst between commit: b7abcd9c656b ("bpf, doc: Link to submitting-patches.rst for general patch submission info") from the bpf tree and commit: d56b0c461d19 ("bpf, docs: Fix link to netdev-FAQ target") 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.