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, 1 Nov 2017 18:10:10 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net-next tree Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: kernel/events/core.c between commit: 97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers") from the net-next tree and commits: 7d9285e82db5 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() interface, a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers"") 0d3d73aac2ff ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping") from the tip tree. I fixed it up (the latter just removed the code added by the two earlier patches) 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