netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net 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:   Tue, 4 Apr 2017 10:48:35 -0400
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:13:57AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   net/core/flow_dissector.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   ac6a3722fed6 ("flow dissector: correct size of storage for ARP")
> 
> from the net tree and commit:
> 
>   9bf881ffc5c0 ("flow_dissector: Move ARP dissection into a separate function")
> 
> 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.

Thanks Stephen, the fix looks correct to me.