netdev - Re: 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <583D20FE.7060707@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Tue, 29 Nov 2016 07:32:30 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

On 11/29/2016 01:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>    net/sched/cls_flower.c
>
> between commit:
>
>    d936377414fa ("net, sched: respect rcu grace period on cls destruction")
>
> from the net tree and commit:
>
>    13fa876ebd03 ("net/sched: cls_flower: merge filter delete/destroy common code")
>
> from the net-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) 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.

Looks good to me, thanks!