netdev - 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20181220130744.1c8db488@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 20 Dec 2018 13:07:44 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Gavi Teitz <gavi@...lanox.com>,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

Hi all,

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

  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rep.c

between commit:

  8956f0014ea5 ("net/mlx5e: Fix default amount of channels for VF representors")

from the net tree and commit:

  d9ee0491c2ff ("net/mlx5e: Use dedicated uplink vport netdev representor")

from the net-next tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the net-next tree version) 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

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped