netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with Linus' 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: <9414bc03-4b88-83e3-0cd7-9c227b756da9@fb.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:24:11 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kafai@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with Linus' tree

On 3/23/17 5:10 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:05:14 +1100
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   8c290e60fa2a ("bpf: fix hashmap extra_elems logic")
>>
>> from Linus' tree and commit:
>>
>>   bcc6b1b7ebf8 ("bpf: Add hash of maps support")
>>
>> 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.
>
> I did the same resolution just an hour ago when merging net into
> net-next.

yes. that's correct merge conflict resolution.
Just rebuilt and retested. All looks good.
Thanks!