From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752244AbdGCBhg (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Jul 2017 21:37:36 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:50003 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752100AbdGCBhe (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Jul 2017 21:37:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:37:32 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: David Miller , Networking , Catalin Marinas Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Luc Van Oostenryck , Will Deacon , Daniel Borkmann Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the arm64 tree Message-ID: <20170703113732.6af8235d@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c between commit: 425e1ed73e65 ("arm64: fix endianness annotation for 'struct jit_ctx' and friends") from the arm64 tree and commit: f1c9eed7f437 ("bpf, arm64: take advantage of stack_depth tracking") 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. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell diff --cc arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c index 8860bb9c33a1,2f0505b5c240..000000000000 --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c @@@ -70,7 -70,8 +70,8 @@@ struct jit_ctx int idx; int epilogue_offset; int *offset; - u32 *image; + __le32 *image; + u32 stack_size; }; static inline void emit(const u32 insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)