[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170323.171035.27948034948873194.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ast@...com, kafai@...com
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with Linus' tree
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.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists