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 09:18:32 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net-next tree On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > > between commits: > > 97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers") > and more changes ... > > from the net-next tree and commit: > > 7d9285e82db5 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() interface, a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers"") > > from the tip tree. So those should be the exact same patch; except for Changelog and subject. Code wise there shouldn't be a conflict.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists