From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964885Ab2AEWv6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2012 17:51:58 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52082 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932570Ab2AEWv4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2012 17:51:56 -0500 Message-ID: <1325803909.17118.17.camel@localhost> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the net-next tree From: Eric Paris To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Paul Moore , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrei Emeltchenko , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Gustavo F. Padovan" Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:51:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20120106091550.534131cb1fe6e3dee323699c@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20120105151255.f72ad113a93493bb55844034@canb.auug.org.au> <27624574.j8RvKjachg@sifl> <20120106091550.534131cb1fe6e3dee323699c@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 09:15 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:25:53 -0500 Paul Moore wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 05, 2012 03:12:55 PM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the selinux tree got a conflict in > > > net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c between commit 15770b1ab974 ("Bluetooth: > > > convert force_active variable to flag in l2cap chan") from the net-next > > > tree and commit 53860f3d0499 ("bluetooth: Properly clone LSM attributes > > > to newly created child connections") from the selinux tree. > > > > > > These both remove the same line, but there is probably something more > > > subtle going on ... I just used the version from the net-next tree. > > > > Something is a bit odd. When I look in the current linux-next tree I see two > > commits which fix a Bluetooth/LSM bug; the first is correct, the second one > > appears to be some other commit which just hijacked the description from the > > first ... I have no idea what is going on in the second commit; I'll leave > > that to you git gurus :) > > > > * Correct commit -> 6230c9b4f8957c8938ee4cf2d03166d3c2dc89de > > That is a commit in Linus' tree before v3.1 > > > * Garbage commit -> 53860f3d0499992855d58e33f0f79bfe642dfccb > > That is the commit in the selinux tree. This should be unnecessary as > the selinux tree is based on v3.1 (and I basically ignored it in the > merge resolution). Thanks paul... This must be a result of me rebasing my tree onto 3.1. No way I should have left this garbage. It doesn't make sense. I think I'll rewrite history for tomorrow since noone is going to notice or care... -Eric