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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2017 08:39:11 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com" <bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com>,
        Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamvor.zhangjian@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kselftest tree with the net-next
 tree

On 01/25/2017 05:03 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Shuah,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kselftest tree got a conflict in:
>
>    tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
>
> between commit:
>
>    62b64660262a ("bpf: add prog tag test case to bpf selftests")
>
> from the net-next tree and commit:
>
>    88baa78d1f31 ("selftests: remove duplicated all and clean target")
>
> from the kselftest 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!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists