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
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 9 May 2020 07:40:32 +0000
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
To:     "sfr@...b.auug.org.au" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>
CC:     "linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Maor Gottlieb <maorg@...lanox.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the rdma tree

On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 13:18 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   ed7d4f023b1a ("bonding: Rename slave_arr to usable_slaves")
>   c071d91d2a89 ("bonding: Add helper function to get the xmit slave
> based on hash")
>   29d5bbccb3a1 ("bonding: Add helper function to get the xmit slave
> in rr mode")
> 
> from the rdma and mlx5-next trees and commit:
> 
>   ae46f184bc1f ("bonding: propagate transmit status")
> 
> from the net-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I think - 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.
> 

Hi Stephen and thanks for the report. 

Your fix seems to be ok, i think it is missing some hunks for
bond_get_slave_by_id function and some "likely" directives are missing,
which were added by Maor's or Eric's patches.

Anyway this is already fixed up in my net-next-mlx5 tree and will be
submitted very soon to net-next with the conflict fixup .. 

Thanks,
Saeed.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists