linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the afs 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190902103137.4c676df4@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:31:37 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        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>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the afs tree with the net tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the afs tree got conflicts in:

  include/trace/events/rxrpc.h
  net/rxrpc/ar-internal.h
  net/rxrpc/call_object.c
  net/rxrpc/conn_client.c
  net/rxrpc/input.c
  net/rxrpc/recvmsg.c
  net/rxrpc/skbuff.c

between various commits from the net tree and similar commits from the
afs tree.

I fixed it up (I just dropped the afs tree for today) 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.

It looks like the afs tree has older versions fo some commits in the
net tree ... plus some more.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped