netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the net-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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Tue, 21 May 2013 13:04:38 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nicolas Schichan <nschichan@...ebox.fr>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the net-next
 tree

On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:29:48 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c between commit aafc787e41fd ("arm: bpf_jit: can
> call module_free() from any context") from the net-next tree and commit
> "bpf: add comments explaining the schedule_work() operation" from the
> akpm tree.
> 
> The former means that the latter is no longer required, so I used the
> former and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).

Yes, there have been a lot of conflicts in

seccomp-add-generic-code-for-jitted-seccomp-filters.patch
arm-net-bpf_jit-make-code-generation-less-dependent-on-struct-sk_filter.patch
arm-net-bpf_jit-make-code-generation-less-dependent-on-struct-sk_filter-fixup-merge-conflict.patch
arm-net-bpf_jit-add-support-for-jitted-seccomp-filters.patch

recently and I'm presently seeing a compilation error.

Nicolas, I think the patches need a re-check so I'll drop the versions
which I presently have.  Please refresh, retest and resend when
convenient?  It'll need to be against linux-next, which is where the
conflicting (vfree/module_free) changes have occurred.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html