linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the s390 tree

linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the s390 tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 748 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  arch/s390/net/bpf_jit.S

between commit:

  de5cb6eb514e ("s390: use expoline thunks in the BPF JIT")

from the s390 tree and commit:

  e1cf4befa297 ("bpf, s390x: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")

from the bpf-next tree.

I fixed it up (I just removed the file as the latter does) 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the s390 tree

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 05/08/2018 02:26 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/s390/net/bpf_jit.S
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   de5cb6eb514e ("s390: use expoline thunks in the BPF JIT")
> 
> from the s390 tree and commit:
> 
>   e1cf4befa297 ("bpf, s390x: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
> 
> from the bpf-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just removed the file as the latter does) 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.

Yep, sounds good, thanks!

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the s390 tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 936 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Tue, 8 May 2018 10:26:38 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/s390/net/bpf_jit.S
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   de5cb6eb514e ("s390: use expoline thunks in the BPF JIT")
> 
> from the s390 tree and commit:
> 
>   e1cf4befa297 ("bpf, s390x: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
> 
> from the bpf-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just removed the file as the latter does) 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.

This is now a conflict between the net-next and s390 trees.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the s390 tree

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 05/09/2018 06:21 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Tue, 8 May 2018 10:26:38 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   arch/s390/net/bpf_jit.S
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   de5cb6eb514e ("s390: use expoline thunks in the BPF JIT")
>>
>> from the s390 tree and commit:
>>
>>   e1cf4befa297 ("bpf, s390x: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
>>
>> from the bpf-next tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I just removed the file as the latter does) 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.
> 
> This is now a conflict between the net-next and s390 trees.

Right, bpf-next merged as usual into net-next two days ago; so same
resolution applies.