netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <84481a2d-3930-93c5-9d4f-55b3d066050f@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Mon, 7 May 2018 10:15:45 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next tree

On 05/07/2018 06:10 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:09:09 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   e782bdcf58c5 ("bpf, x64: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
>>
>> from the bpf-next tree and commit:
>>
>>   5f26c50143f5 ("x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code more readable")
>>
>> from the tip tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (the former commit removed some code modified by the latter,
>> so I just removed it) 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.
> 
> Actually the tip tree commit has been added to the bpf-next tree as a
> different commit, so dropping it from the tip tree will clean this up.

Yep, it's been cherry-picked into bpf-next to avoid merge conflicts with
ongoing work.