netdev - linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net 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>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160418113038.00d78799@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:30:38 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

Hi all,

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

  drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx.c

between commit:

  207afda1b503 ("net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: share the same default FDB")

from the net tree and commit:

  009a2b9843bf ("net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: add number of ports to info")

from the net-next tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed some of the code 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