netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rust tree with the bpf-next 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:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 13:32:54 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Adam Bratschi-Kaye <ark.email@...il.com>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Ayaan Zaidi <zaidi.ayaan@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Boris-Chengbiao Zhou <bobo1239@....de>,
        Douglas Su <d0u9.su@...look.com>, Finn Behrens <me@...enk.de>,
        Fox Chen <foxhlchen@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
        Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@...reload.com>,
        Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Sumera Priyadarsini <sylphrenadin@...il.com>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...gle.com>,
        Yuki Okushi <jtitor@...6.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rust tree with the bpf-next tree

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 6:51 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> 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.

Looks correct, thanks Stephen!

I am glad you didn't have more conflicts after the rebase to v5.15-rc5.

Cheers,
Miguel