linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the jc

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20211118101339.6ec37e14@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 18 Nov 2021 10:13:39 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Dave Tucker <dave@...cker.co.uk>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the jc_docs tree

Hi all,

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

  Documentation/bpf/index.rst

between commit:

  1c1c3c7d08d8 ("libbpf: update index.rst reference")

from the jc_docs tree and commit:

  5931d9a3d052 ("bpf, docs: Fix ordering of bpf documentation")

from the bpf-next tree.

I fixed it up (the latter removed the line updated by the former, so I
just 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