netdev - linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with Linus' 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 24 Aug 2020 10:56:09 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 
        <toke@...hat.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

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

  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c

between commit:

  1e891e513e16 ("libbpf: Fix map index used in error message")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  88a82120282b ("libbpf: Factor out common ELF operations and improve logging")

from the bpf-next tree.

I fixed it up (the latter included the fix from the former) 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