From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751592AbdECEJI (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 May 2017 00:09:08 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:58800 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750819AbdECEJB (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 May 2017 00:09:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 00:08:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20170503.000856.253462815755050143.davem@davemloft.net> To: sfr@canb.auug.org.au Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, egtvedt@samfundet.no, hskinnemoen@gmail.com, nicolas.ferre@microchip.com, johunt@akamai.com, sridhar.samudrala@intel.com, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with Linus' tree From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20170503110703.0945929d@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20170503110703.0945929d@canb.auug.org.au> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.1 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Tue, 02 May 2017 20:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Stephen Rothwell Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 11:07:03 +1000 > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: > > arch/avr32/include/uapi/asm/socket.h > > between commit: > > 26202873bb51 ("avr32: remove support for AVR32 architecture") > > from Linus' tree and commits: > > a2d133b1d465 ("sock: introduce SO_MEMINFO getsockopt") > 6d4339028b35 ("net: Introduce SO_INCOMING_NAPI_ID" > 5daab9db7b65 ("New getsockopt option to get socket cookie") > > from the net-next tree. > > I fixed it up (I removed the file) 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. Duly noted in the pull request I sent to Linus, and now that he took net-next in it is resolved in his tree. Thanks!