From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steffen Klassert Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ipsec-next tree with the net-next tree Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:29:23 +0200 Message-ID: <20130925052923.GU7660@secunet.com> References: <20130924121629.f818475ddf308b0494cfce2a@canb.auug.org.au> <20130924102505.GS7660@secunet.com> <20130925095919.143635403832766c1b190202@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130925095919.143635403832766c1b190202@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Fan Du , Joe Perches , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 09:59:19AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Steffen, > > On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:25:05 +0200 Steffen Klassert wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:16:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the ipsec-next tree got a conflict in > > > include/net/xfrm.h between commit d511337a1eda ("xfrm.h: Remove extern > > > from function prototypes") from the net-next tree and commit aba826958830 > > > ("{ipv4,xfrm}: Introduce xfrm_tunnel_notifier for xfrm tunnel mode > > > callback") from the ipsec-next tree. > > > > Thanks for the information, I'll do a rebase of the ipsec-next > > tree tomorrow. > > Did you miss the end of the next paragraph: "no action is required"? > Dave can fix this up (like I did) when he merges your tree into his. > I applied this patch shortly before the merge window opened, it is a left over from the last develpoment cycle. I already rebased my tree onto net-next in the past if that happened, even if there were no merge conflicts. I did that just to see if everything still works. But I could also do a test merge to see if everything still works and ask to pull without a rebase then if this is the prefered way. Would make my life easier :)