netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the net-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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2016 08:02:55 +0100
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the net-next
 tree

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:04:47PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/staging/slicoss/slicoss.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   a52ad514fdf3 ("net: deprecate eth_change_mtu, remove usage")
> 
> from the net-next tree and commit:
> 
>   0af72df267f2 ("staging: slicoss: remove the staging driver")
> 
> from the staging tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just removed the file) 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.

Thanks, we did coordinate this :)

greg k-h