From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net-next tree Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 18:10:10 +1100 Message-ID: <20171101181010.7fcceeab@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:54163 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750716AbdKAHKM (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2017 03:10:12 -0400 Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , David Miller , Networking Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Yonghong Song Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: kernel/events/core.c between commit: 97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers") from the net-next tree and commits: 7d9285e82db5 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() interface, a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers"") 0d3d73aac2ff ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping") from the tip tree. I fixed it up (the latter just removed the code added by the two earlier patches) 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. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell