linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mlx5-next tree with the net-next 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]

Message-ID: <CALzJLG9pmK-OPK1+iVkKWkKPvPUf0icFKZuUojJej7WR1BtV3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:59:50 -0700
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        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>,
        Yevgeny Kliteynik <kliteyn@...lanox.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Eli Britstein <elibr@...lanox.com>,
        Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mlx5-next tree with the net-next tree

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:09 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the mlx5-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>   drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch_offloads.c
>
> between commits:
>
>   955858009708 ("net/mlx5e: Fix number of vports for ingress ACL configuration")
>   d4a18e16c570 ("net/mlx5e: Enable setting multiple match criteria for flow group")
>
> from the net-next tree and commits:
>
>   7445cfb1169c ("net/mlx5: E-Switch, Tag packet with vport number in VF vports and uplink ingress ACLs")
>   c01cfd0f1115 ("net/mlx5: E-Switch, Add match on vport metadata for rule in fast path")
>
> from the mlx5-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I basically used the latter versions) 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.
>

Thanks Stephen, this will be handled in my next pull request to net-next.


> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell