[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180507141003.79783848@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 14:10:03 +1000
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>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next tree
Hi all,
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:09:09 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>
> between commit:
>
> e782bdcf58c5 ("bpf, x64: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
>
> from the bpf-next tree and commit:
>
> 5f26c50143f5 ("x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code more readable")
>
> from the tip tree.
>
> I fixed it up (the former commit removed some code modified by the latter,
> so I just removed it) 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.
Actually the tip tree commit has been added to the bpf-next tree as a
different commit, so dropping it from the tip tree will clean this up.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists