netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the s390 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 8 May 2018 10:19:54 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
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 bpf-next tree with the s390 tree

On 05/08/2018 02:26 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/s390/net/bpf_jit.S
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   de5cb6eb514e ("s390: use expoline thunks in the BPF JIT")
> 
> from the s390 tree and commit:
> 
>   e1cf4befa297 ("bpf, s390x: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
> 
> from the bpf-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just removed the file as the latter does) 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.

Yep, sounds good, thanks!