linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ipsec-next 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]

Message-Id: <20130927120107.99925373bcc260b50e0b3ed8@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:01:07 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ipsec-next tree with the
 net-next tree

Hi Steffen,

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:29:23 +0200 Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 09:59:19AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:25:05 +0200 Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:16:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the ipsec-next tree got a conflict in
> > > > include/net/xfrm.h between commit d511337a1eda ("xfrm.h: Remove extern
> > > > from function prototypes") from the net-next tree and commit aba826958830
> > > > ("{ipv4,xfrm}: Introduce xfrm_tunnel_notifier for xfrm tunnel mode
> > > > callback") from the ipsec-next tree.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the information, I'll do a rebase of the ipsec-next
> > > tree tomorrow.
> > 
> > Did you miss the end of the next paragraph:  "no action is required"?
> > Dave can fix this up (like I did) when he merges your tree into his.
> 
> I applied this patch shortly before the merge window opened, it is a left
> over from the last develpoment cycle. I already rebased my tree onto
> net-next in the past if that happened, even if there were no merge
> conflicts. I did that just to see if everything still works. But I
> could also do a test merge to see if everything still works and ask
> to pull without a rebase then if this is the prefered way. Would make
> my life easier :)

That would be up to Dave ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped