[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <35edf438-0a07-83e3-be6d-5989007b683a@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:38:24 -0800
From: "Nambiar, Amritha" <amritha.nambiar@...el.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
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>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
aul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree
On 12/9/2018 5:36 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> net/sched/cls_flower.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 35cc3cefc4de ("net/sched: cls_flower: Reject duplicated rules also under skip_sw")
>
> from the net tree and commit:
>
> 5c72299fba9d ("net: sched: cls_flower: Classify packets using port ranges")
>
> from the net-next tree.
>
> 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.
>
Looks good to me. Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists