linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net 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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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!