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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Wed, 9 May 2018 08:31:13 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        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 05/09/2018 06:21 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Tue, 8 May 2018 10:26:38 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> 
> This is now a conflict between the net-next and s390 trees.

Right, bpf-next merged as usual into net-next two days ago; so same
resolution applies.