[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5959F84A.8040808@iogearbox.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 09:54:50 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the arm64
tree
On 07/03/2017 03:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 425e1ed73e65 ("arm64: fix endianness annotation for 'struct jit_ctx' and friends")
>
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
>
> f1c9eed7f437 ("bpf, arm64: take advantage of stack_depth tracking")
>
> from the net-next 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