[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220511111012.22c08135@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 11:10:12 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>,
Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net-next
tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
net/core/sysctl_net_core.c
between commits:
bd8a53675c0d ("net: sysctl: use shared sysctl macro")
4c7f24f857c7 ("net: sysctl: introduce sysctl SYSCTL_THREE")
from the net-next tree and commit:
f922c8972fb5 ("net: sysctl: Use SYSCTL_TWO instead of &two")
from the bpf-next tree.
I fixed it up (bd8a53675c0d and f922c8972fb5 delete the same line) 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists