linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the bpf-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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20210420141452.6e6658b4@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Tue, 20 Apr 2021 14:14:52 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the bpf-next tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:

  kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c

between commit:

  d9c9e4db186a ("bpf: Factorize bpf_trace_printk and bpf_seq_printf")

from the bpf-next tree and commit:

  f2cc020d7876 ("tracing: Fix various typos in comments")

from the ftrace tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed the comment updated by the latter) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped