From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with Linus' tree Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20170323.171035.27948034948873194.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20170324110514.0376c46f@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:59902 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751406AbdCXAKh (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:10:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170324110514.0376c46f@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: sfr@canb.auug.org.au Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ast@fb.com, kafai@fb.com From: Stephen Rothwell Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:05:14 +1100 > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c > > between commit: > > 8c290e60fa2a ("bpf: fix hashmap extra_elems logic") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > bcc6b1b7ebf8 ("bpf: Add hash of maps support") > > from the net-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. I did the same resolution just an hour ago when merging net into net-next. Thanks!