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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 EA938C433E0 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 09:18:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C14822075B for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 09:18:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726188AbgFEJSa (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2020 05:18:30 -0400 Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([62.96.220.36]:45324 "EHLO a.mx.secunet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726184AbgFEJSa (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2020 05:18:30 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a.mx.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC472051F; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:18:28 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by secunet Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (a.mx.secunet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QbH6BSzxoDwq; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:18:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-essen-01.secunet.de (mail-essen-01.secunet.de [10.53.40.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a.mx.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 174382052E; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:18:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mbx-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.197) by mail-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.204) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.487.0; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:18:27 +0200 Received: from gauss2.secunet.de (10.182.7.193) by mbx-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.197) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:18:27 +0200 Received: by gauss2.secunet.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 21A1531801FA; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:18:27 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:18:27 +0200 From: Steffen Klassert To: David Ahern CC: Stephen Rothwell , "David S. Miller" , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Florian Westphal Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ipsec-next tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20200605091827.GD19286@gauss3.secunet.de> References: <20200511130015.37103884@canb.auug.org.au> <20200602092040.5ef52300@canb.auug.org.au> <6092c5eb-6e50-97bc-90db-4f7a0ca29c6e@gmail.com> <20200604112606.25ffde35@canb.auug.org.au> <8d943a28-2e9f-9c61-9cff-899e907d6b86@gmail.com> <20200604064149.GT19286@gauss3.secunet.de> <9b338449-e342-96ab-0ba1-a73058fac037@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9b338449-e342-96ab-0ba1-a73058fac037@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-ClientProxiedBy: cas-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.201) To mbx-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.197) X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: 2c86f778-e09b-4440-8b15-867914633a10 Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 06:44:10AM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > On 6/4/20 12:41 AM, Steffen Klassert wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 08:55:01PM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > >> On 6/3/20 7:26 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>> > >>> And now the net-next tree has been merged into Linus' tree without this fix :-( > >>> > >> > >> I took a look earlier and I think it is fine. Some code was moved around > >> in ipsec-next and I think the merge is good. I'll run the test cases > >> later this week and double check. Thanks for the reminder > > > > The setting of XFRM_TRANSFORMED moved to xfrm_output() and depends > > on CONFIG_NETFILTER. So I think the fix is needed. After the merge > > of the net tree today, I have both conflicting patches patches in > > the ipsec tree. I'd apply the fix from Stephen unless you say > > it is not needed. > > > > Indeed. I must have been looking at -net. Both -net and -net-next have > it conditional, so yes a fixup patch is needed. The fixup patch from Stephen is now applied to the ipsec tree.