[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180509142154.73ff5772@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 14:21:54 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
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 bpf-next tree with the s390
tree
Hi all,
On Tue, 8 May 2018 10:26:38 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/s390/net/bpf_jit.S
>
> between commit:
>
> de5cb6eb514e ("s390: use expoline thunks in the BPF JIT")
>
> from the s390 tree and commit:
>
> e1cf4befa297 ("bpf, s390x: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
>
> from the bpf-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just removed the file as the latter does) 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.
This is now a conflict between the net-next and s390 trees.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists