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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAADnVQK3qg2k67LRiOqDmFnELrFOD1dLkrNbAvbMyu6xGpjBLw@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 16:41:38 -0800 From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the bpf tree On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:37 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c > > between commit: > > f6be4d16039b ("selftests/bpf: make sure signal interrupts BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN") Ouch. Thanks for the heads up. Daniel, should we drop this one from bpf tree ? I don't think it's strictly necessary. > from the bpf tree and commits: > > bf0f0fd93945 ("selftests/bpf: add simple BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN examples for flow dissector") > ab963beb9f5d ("selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock C test") > ba72a7b4badb ("selftests/bpf: test for BPF_F_LOCK") >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists