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

Date:   Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:52:01 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, 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>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the net-next tree

Hi all,

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

  drivers/staging/fsl-dpaa2/ethsw/ethsw.c

between commit:

  570b68c8ddde ("staging: fsl-dpaa2: ethsw: Handle SWITCHDEV_PORT_ATTR_SET")

from the net-next tree and commit:

  11f27765f611 ("staging: fsl-dpaa2: ethsw: Add missing netdevice check")

from the staging tree.

I fixed it up (the former is a superset of the latter) 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