[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a6v4nslj.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 07:41:12 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the bpf-next tree
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
> kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 91b2db27d3ff ("bpf: Simplify task_file_seq_get_next()")
>
> from the bpf-next tree and commit:
>
> edc52f17257a ("bpf/task_iter: In task_file_seq_get_next use task_lookup_next_fd_rcu")
>
> from the userns tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I think, 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.
Thanks. Reading through the diff that looks right, and it has been already
reported.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists