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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS 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 E9301C43381 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 09:26:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBEDD2075C for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 09:26:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732582AbfC0J0J convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Mar 2019 05:26:09 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com ([209.85.221.67]:33365 "EHLO mail-wr1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729489AbfC0J0G (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Mar 2019 05:26:06 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id q1so17653843wrp.0; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 02:26:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:content-transfer-encoding:user-agent:mime-version; bh=yBMLoHOl082TnS8zsdQPe5JQB1/9lZ/UzvMcb+XEpbw=; b=YAcWCArHR2bs+ZsaMrv7MB7Md+1+9EU0hMJfixKVbykN6YyLnbM/1t0bfBP6nnmEpR Rr7cCQw4Dli9/RQTJGkb00jgqKGKVqHHHAs/3rJ5lmbxOaUOJLz/0/wrIQYeX6xfIWJk 6r2WPG6LNmAaqi4mDjmAjg82O8m7kWtp5CnN4n15/geHiktS5LhMGqMGtI7rKUpv14xL zI6+y6VccjYqn9u36TFLMwf+39MMedSAtevo1VP/gJvt2ZOnmzP0BmaCFG/yZ25EFJxy NjW+PS4FyXnGVPK3QTX0olZxzXVkAZ173VKjnB0HBhRIpqNJEVAYZO3F5/WfuFI9zB8J MJcA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAULDwJfKKXhMIK/xsqRnA6mh7oujpChv/QerLehrzwj/+YZACM2 7k99H3mov51D6ORnC6oWWIbt0Y5A X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzvB8qsZ/VyiUEoQ79bLzoR6jSope5lHBP7wy+9FlwXkiTgn5yA5VU1FbEQzvhG95uOfNK+ZA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:66c2:: with SMTP id k2mr21632728wrw.312.1553678764312; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 02:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2a01:4b00:f419:6f00:b00c:66c8:99df:336]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a10sm29674089wrs.19.2019.03.27.02.26.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 27 Mar 2019 02:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net tree From: Luca Boccassi To: Alexei Starovoitov , Stephen Rothwell Cc: Daniel Borkmann , Alexei Starovoitov , Networking , David Miller , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 09:26:02 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20190327015623.ur46t5gdmraagi2q@ast-mbp> References: <20190327091437.68ec6903@canb.auug.org.au> <20190327015623.ur46t5gdmraagi2q@ast-mbp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 18:56 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 09:14:37AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in: > > > > tools/lib/bpf/Makefile > > > > between commit: > > > > 1d382264d911 ("bpf, libbpf: fix version info and add it to shared > > object") > > > > from the net tree and commit: > > > > 60e4786e229d ("tools/bpf: generate pkg-config file for libbpf") > > > > from the bpf-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. > > argh. that's a heavy conflict. > Since that patch was at the top of the bpf-next I removed it for now > and will re-apply when bpf-next gets merged cleanly into net-next and > we bring back net changes into bpf-next. Sorry Luca. No worries - for the next time, should I have based the patch on net- next rather than bpf-next? -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi