[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230703-dreharbeiten-waggon-4a4432ecb886@brauner>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 09:50:49 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with Linus' tree
On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 09:42:50AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got conflicts in:
>
> kernel/pid.c
> kernel/pid_namespace.c
>
> between commits:
>
> b69f0aeb0689 ("pid: Replace struct pid 1-element array with flex-array")
> dd546618ba70 ("pid: use struct_size_t() helper")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
> 757777eef55b ("pid: Replace struct pid 1-element array with flex-array")
>
> from the pidfd tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I used the former version) 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.
I'm dropping the patch since we fixed this in mainline.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists