From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755378AbeASBBV (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jan 2018 20:01:21 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:51481 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754931AbeASBAy (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jan 2018 20:00:54 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:00:51 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell To: David Miller , Networking Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Daniel Borkmann , Alexei Starovoitov Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree Message-ID: <20180119120051.30bd88ae@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: kernel/bpf/verifier.c between commit: 6f16101e6a8b ("bpf: mark dst unknown on inconsistent {s, u}bounds adjustments") from the net tree and commit: f4d7e40a5b71 ("bpf: introduce function calls (verification)") from the net-next tree. I fixed it up (I just used the former version) 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