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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:15:04 +0000 From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com> To: "sfr@...b.auug.org.au" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org> CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Huy Nguyen <huyn@...lanox.com>, "linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree On Mon, 2019-04-01 at 09:11 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/port_buffer.c > > between commit: > > e28408e98bce ("net/mlx5e: Update xon formula") > > from the net tree and commit: > > d3669ca9ff33 ("net/mlx5e: Fix port buffer function documentation > format") > > from the net-next tree. > > I fixed it up (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. > Thanks Stephen, the resolution looks good, Dave was already notified about this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists