From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ipsec-next tree with the net-next tree Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:01:07 +1000 Message-ID: <20130927120107.99925373bcc260b50e0b3ed8@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20130924121629.f818475ddf308b0494cfce2a@canb.auug.org.au> <20130924102505.GS7660@secunet.com> <20130925095919.143635403832766c1b190202@canb.auug.org.au> <20130925052923.GU7660@secunet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA256"; boundary="Signature=_Fri__27_Sep_2013_12_01_07_+1000_Bpt5QyrZT9zDdR=2" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130925052923.GU7660@secunet.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Steffen Klassert 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 --Signature=_Fri__27_Sep_2013_12_01_07_+1000_Bpt5QyrZT9zDdR=2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Steffen, On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:29:23 +0200 Steffen Klassert wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 09:59:19AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >=20 > > 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: > > > >=20 > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the ipsec-next tree got a conflict in > > > > include/net/xfrm.h between commit d511337a1eda ("xfrm.h: Remove ext= ern > > > > from function prototypes") from the net-next tree and commit aba826= 958830 > > > > ("{ipv4,xfrm}: Introduce xfrm_tunnel_notifier for xfrm tunnel mode > > > > callback") from the ipsec-next tree. > > >=20 > > > Thanks for the information, I'll do a rebase of the ipsec-next > > > tree tomorrow. > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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 :) That would be up to Dave ... --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au --Signature=_Fri__27_Sep_2013_12_01_07_+1000_Bpt5QyrZT9zDdR=2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJSROboAAoJEMDTa8Ir7ZwVoRQQAIJQotoVoy91whcLvi1VEeTP MKKLBQ+IKIF0s/qQHVEXmRindn4gjl7IDNLstpu+xXlRhXuBjzO/7HdfnsQk4KDx VH0M9bfdY/NRT/XpjnPadqdItNw6f+KBt5dFndoEgVgMmmtcosjbeNT1I2bgdGZD 1hRMlPmN/GQjbXO8xW8WItsLHnwWccSsZDbNs6nZpxIdGAaFdL9sozIRpweHnEbr BDjGdEunaVfL1kYdGA1hYWIEEhQgYAivJsGdHEHilRImvQuS1BYeyj8Fq2JQE7Cz iMw3cx6IheynatCmH4ClczzTUuMnyGd/6iR2TQVJd7X8BMup12GNZD037RZZwrqh K3/dwHSCU6nxk1ltHQ0jrzB7niSHmLq6j9susp5bNWbw6Qm96zOg+TCLhj6ajkbw DOiCR24yqwr5DSa8DGnziDkjggBfKPOGC1CRzF0Mt3dedbx2VxqcReGxcALGB7O7 uJCDftBNiyFG21OBurFaud8FJ+dtpOBDdCFmrAkuVRmJxZdHhLXcNNtA1gpRy3mH L78OKTUOfesoeLFjWAPjWs/1cVZOExEFgIfYmBIvv48sitnizjgOPbLqZuiJvofz 6EXQiKGcbMkfuft82tFHY5ubj5Gxj50uCbpu01iKYAFcNmOACXJdLP89INz+CER2 lMPUxFazuc65cccTG6YE =SwBO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Fri__27_Sep_2013_12_01_07_+1000_Bpt5QyrZT9zDdR=2--