linux-kernel - 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160608111705.2f196767@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jun 2016 11:17:05 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:

  net/sched/act_police.c

between commit:

  53eb440f4ada ("net sched actions: introduce timestamp for firsttime use")

from the net tree and commit:

  a03e6fe56971 ("act_police: fix a crash during removal")

from the net-next tree.

I fixed it up (I think that the firstuse zero initialisation has become
redundant, so I just removed it) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell