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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 7 May 2018 12:09:09 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next tree

Hi all,

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

  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c

between commit:

  e782bdcf58c5 ("bpf, x64: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")

from the bpf-next tree and commit:

  5f26c50143f5 ("x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code more readable")

from the tip tree.

I fixed it up (the former commit removed some code modified by the latter,
so I just removed it) 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

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped