From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C44C43387 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 10:13:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E1A2133F for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 10:13:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="kS9qcsUB" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731628AbeLQKNE (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2018 05:13:04 -0500 Received: from mail-yb1-f174.google.com ([209.85.219.174]:46154 "EHLO mail-yb1-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726656AbeLQKNB (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2018 05:13:01 -0500 Received: by mail-yb1-f174.google.com with SMTP id f9so4838860ybm.13 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 02:13:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hHYje4n6KxofNi9mlQsooXZ4wBBO/retiPR2c4W92ds=; b=kS9qcsUBreL3BXy/ZRmFibSUJCIu+BLCMnRsbum8cAFOfUX/UwGiKbx9QiL0PkVIKY WmYVtvDhYEYCob93eMUOcOYEhYzvNszdJH9EfeEk5vSa3Mt8fji9Js88ZBCddQ3Gm8Yo zfjndgYuIQbmpvYGNi+66jVuKljzPIfaqTZ5MehLKyB6P0DNL1USgSKyoeKsF0k1Cm/4 yfzE9Ugn8zUin+gdltt0I2ry3e3uzViz6skcyJ3OEFgt/4QJVKVPUZ9qfqayPj52muu0 qaW87E96sIyy3ChdbcI62mNXuMBCT8j2uA4/oxtblZCzWMRcH3Ph3gzFdBvsDJdYkxbq i9qg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hHYje4n6KxofNi9mlQsooXZ4wBBO/retiPR2c4W92ds=; b=hY/lOVFMwdJLnglC5RR88SETReq4ng8mDhhpA1ovpu+OiDyurBZlyGagFH29A0vJta c7BWmPPCS42y5pJdhaldgNyc4qbgJnb1/3TxZ48I0xWIrMLakaUrZFUioc+uSQWn53bQ 0P0YMr45wsY24qY34Op9x/YFJ7N+6WKtQbxwXQgMGbxtq8K1DwdX6oLlAbAvJx6RJIXM Hj2wZYTqhGu3SXzplkLQNMNceGDS81koyV5tnZVoZoce5S/yRmV5vs5tJ8duGBGn76eQ zJdX2Cr4gpBD2tYEtDDRpGpeyXT2wAKKjxIdquyyNG1j+S8ua/sXLC3vHOT41fGHSSNS YQOQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbUSuoYHFemdm7k4a5I3wp/+Iqs0WrY9YW+83aN/hw5dl8nwMoL qlvJb/xZvnuHf9VX1p543LLoZfDTk/Hma5xZqbzBsA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/UH5NqP1camh8oSgb5IwjpNcu8MtdGx6T4cgOzY8HOR/sL/3vcJwiSyEn3qjKRvkKmLZhsgEBzUK3H7B43EehM= X-Received: by 2002:a25:3042:: with SMTP id w63mr6155349ybw.461.1545041579439; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 02:12:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181217113106.32d98f30@canb.auug.org.au> <20181217100314.GA12765@splinter> In-Reply-To: <20181217100314.GA12765@splinter> From: Eric Dumazet Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 02:12:47 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree To: Ido Schimmel Cc: Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , netdev , linux-next , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:03 AM Ido Schimmel wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:31:06AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: > > > > net/ipv6/ip6_output.c > > > > between commit: > > > > 8203e2d844d3 ("net: clear skb->tstamp in forwarding paths") > > > > from the net tree and commit: > > > > f839a6c92504 ("net: Do not route unicast IP packets twice") > > > > from the net-next tree. > > > > I fixed it up (I was not quite sure of the correct ordering - 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 good to me. Eric? > > Thank you! Yes, SGTM, thanks.