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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161020110142.41162709@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:01:42 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.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 conflicts in:

  include/linux/netdevice.h
  net/core/dev.c

between commit:

  e4961b076885 ("net: core: Correctly iterate over lower adjacency list")

from the net tree and commit:

  1a3f060c1a47 ("net: Introduce new api for walking upper and lower devices")
  f1170fd462c6 ("net: Remove all_adj_list and its references")

from the net-next tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the net-next tree version) 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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ