linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the net tree with Linus' tree

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180629081405.448f9296@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:14:05 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ursula Braun <ubraun@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the net tree got a conflict in:

  net/smc/af_smc.c

between commit:

  a11e1d432b51 ("Revert changes to convert to ->poll_mask() and aio IOCB_CMD_POLL")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  24ac3a08e658 ("net/smc: rebuild nonblocking connect")

from the net tree.

I did the obvious syntactic fix up but, given that the commit that the
net tree commit is fixing ie being reverted, I wonder if the net tree
commit is needed (or correct?) any more.

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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped