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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 07:32:30 +0100 From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org> CC: linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree On 11/29/2016 01:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: > > net/sched/cls_flower.c > > between commit: > > d936377414fa ("net, sched: respect rcu grace period on cls destruction") > > from the net tree and commit: > > 13fa876ebd03 ("net/sched: cls_flower: merge filter delete/destroy common code") > > from the net-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. Looks good to me, thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists