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]

Date:   Fri, 28 Feb 2020 10:07:26 +0100
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        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 Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

On Fri, 2020-02-28 at 10:24 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   net/mptcp/protocol.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   dc24f8b4ecd3 ("mptcp: add dummy icsk_sync_mss()")
> 
> from the net tree and commit:
> 
>   80992017150b ("mptcp: add work queue skeleton")
> 
> 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.

Thank you, the conflict resolution looks good to me.

I did not notice the conflict beforehands, sorry.

Cheers,

Paolo