netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net 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]

Message-ID: <CANn89iJAED9AxeX6BjwvEo204-rHOr0QFFk6v7r3nCHb3_0OYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Dec 2018 02:12:47 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:03 AM Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:31:06AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   8203e2d844d3 ("net: clear skb->tstamp in forwarding paths")
> >
> > from the net tree and commit:
> >
> >   f839a6c92504 ("net: Do not route unicast IP packets twice")
> >
> > from the net-next tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I was not quite sure of the correct ordering - 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.
>
> Looks good to me. Eric?
>
> Thank you!


Yes, SGTM,  thanks.