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

Message-ID: <730d7ae9690cb153afd7a39207f009b75d858d91.camel@mellanox.com>
Date:   Sat, 9 May 2020 07:49:58 +0000
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        "sfr@...b.auug.org.au" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "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>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the rdma tree

On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 09:35 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 01:18:51PM +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.
> 
> Saeed? These patches in the shared branch were supposed to be a PR to
> net-net? I see it hasn't happened yet and now we have conflicts?? 
> 

Yes, I don't usually send standalone PRs of mlx5-next, and I only do it
with the corresponding (depending on) patches from net-next-mlx5, but I
agree this one was different I should have submitted it .. anyway the
conflict is minor, i already fixed it up and will submit soon..

Thanks,
Saeed.