From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:10:42 +0200
Message-ID: <1348549842.26828.1897.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
References: <20120925123438.bbf3126889513ee5cc195e5c@canb.auug.org.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Return-path: <linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120925123438.bbf3126889513ee5cc195e5c@canb.auug.org.au>
Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 12:34 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in
> net/ipv4/raw.c between commit ab43ed8b7490 ("ipv4: raw: fix icmp_filter
> ()") from the net tree and commit 5640f7685831 ("net: use a per task frag
> allocator") from the net-next tree.
> 
> They are basically the same patch (for this file) except the net-next
> version adds two pr_err() calls. I used the net-next version and can carry
> the fix as necessary (no action is required).
> 
> I do wonder if this change belongs in the net-next patch?

Oops, my bad, net/ipv4/raw.c changes in 5640f7685831 ("net: use a per
task frag allocator") should not be there :

I accidentally left a debugging version of the patch I sent to fix the
icmp bug.

Sorry David for this, I am not sure how I can help on this ?