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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20181217100314.GA12765@splinter>
Date:   Mon, 17 Dec 2018 10:03:16 +0000
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:31:06AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   8203e2d844d3 ("net: clear skb->tstamp in forwarding paths")
> 
> from the net tree and commit:
> 
>   f839a6c92504 ("net: Do not route unicast IP packets twice")
> 
> from the net-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I was not quite sure of the correct ordering - 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. Eric?

Thank you!