[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <519B25CD.5060801@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:44:13 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Nicolas Schichan <nschichan@...ebox.fr>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the net-next tree
Hi Stephen,
On 05/21/2013 06:25 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c between commit aafc787e41fd ("arm: bpf_jit: can
> call module_free() from any context") from the net-next tree and commit
> "ARM: net: bpf_jit: make code generation less dependent on struct
> sk_filter" from the akpm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> is required).
Also seccomp_jit_free() needs a change otherwise the kernel won't build
with CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER_JIT enabled since the work_struct is initialized
with the bpf_jit_free_worker() callback, which is no longer existent.
Do you want me to send you a patch?
Quite frankly, I don't like so much that {seccomp,bpf}_jit_compile() and
{seccomp,bpf}_jit_free() are almost idential functions and now both need
to be maintained with the same changes, but that's off-topic here.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists