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: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:24:11 -0700 From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kafai@...com> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with Linus' tree On 3/23/17 5:10 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> > Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:05:14 +1100 > >> Hi all, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: >> >> kernel/bpf/hashtab.c >> >> between commit: >> >> 8c290e60fa2a ("bpf: fix hashmap extra_elems logic") >> >> from Linus' tree and commit: >> >> bcc6b1b7ebf8 ("bpf: Add hash of maps support") >> >> 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. > > I did the same resolution just an hour ago when merging net into > net-next. yes. that's correct merge conflict resolution. Just rebuilt and retested. All looks good. Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists