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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 08:39:11 +0100 From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org> CC: linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com" <bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com>, Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamvor.zhangjian@...aro.org> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kselftest tree with the net-next tree On 01/25/2017 05:03 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Shuah, > > Today's linux-next merge of the kselftest tree got a conflict in: > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile > > between commit: > > 62b64660262a ("bpf: add prog tag test case to bpf selftests") > > from the net-next tree and commit: > > 88baa78d1f31 ("selftests: remove duplicated all and clean target") > > from the kselftest 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. Looks good to me, thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists