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]

Message-ID: <ea45718f370427c1d0845d9b55e4fac6359bf1f2.camel@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Feb 2021 21:28:03 +0000
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.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:     Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
        "linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Aya Levin <ayal@...dia.com>,
        "Maxim Mikityanskiy" <maximmi@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 11:52 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
>   drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rx.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   e4484d9df500 ("net/mlx5e: Enable striding RQ for Connect-X IPsec
> capable devices")
> 
> from the net tree and commits:
> 
>   224169d2a32b ("net/mlx5e: IPsec, Remove unnecessary config flag
> usage")
>   70038b73e40e ("net/mlx5e: Add listener to trap event")
>   214baf22870c ("net/mlx5e: Support HTB offload")
> 
> 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.
> 

Resolution looks correct.

Thanks,
Saeed.