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

Date:   Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:22:32 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the vfs tree

Hi all,

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

  drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c

between commit:

  98998345a579 ("ibmvnic: fix kstrtoul, copy_from_user and copy_to_user misuse")

from the vfs tree and commit:

  e704f0434ea6 ("ibmvnic: Remove debugfs support")

from the net-next tree.

I fixed it up (the latter removed all the code modified by the former,
so I just did that) 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