From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0AFCC433B4 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 03:53:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ACBD610FA for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 03:53:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229644AbhDHDyG (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:54:06 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54198 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229469AbhDHDyF (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:54:05 -0400 Received: from mail-il1-x134.google.com (mail-il1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::134]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E6C8C061760 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 20:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x134.google.com with SMTP id d10so615589ils.5 for ; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 20:53:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bytedance-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2W7012bsIfpRy+MP9eZql6DB7ScoxohiHSmP5niLDlE=; b=ciN+HMG0IjEpS0j9JpuVYLetEtRmmzUYWqlcPKsKvlQSwwOZKulO6xvWMgmkBdKKHR dQZOSQC99RJxUGh+qCCFFvF42MQb95PWYbYrOs/Ql8pNYJBDIjbU0LODxO8o0sM070Qk tsv8Ypabqkz+j9zB3BqRiLAnfOmOYkU07v6zmUkYo2f8YOTgDh/CBjMFO7Y7zeymY2sN 0XwCOx5FuGjpmQbU+mql4LlrQ+mcFA/mc41H2wD7MimNm8rr290VgDczN216c60AcC1U T9RNH2pFOG7UuRpfgbLX9t6DPS3D8hoKJ5rMVNp426pxCkbZqHwuvKksUc5X9zaY0Jli CfuQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2W7012bsIfpRy+MP9eZql6DB7ScoxohiHSmP5niLDlE=; b=DFkhamHhHTMBXxhLeU766DJL2ZV0Cfqxmpf2AzamIMrz08kJgRa87+E5P8m5wNN6Hy e3MCxc0G3M7ujHtD4VMtCYztR7imTdokyXkOu6odzsSmLMQ6qdG4XDwXFxJRIgq0EQN+ DDUfeRvq7/FGzcW1SycnUJRP7KpY6e2I1KSUkuW22ijg6hvn100o1EayAn0IAwgJc8AD UD4Dsj7lCa9GasU6KxGvSX0SSmpLjmZnkqUvutRqGKZL8h94fw+5TQxNxJO3o/huTkQ/ XUYs0TzYYcJ+Rr5V7R8JQynu321kX+0/OvjzPCZXLb7Adv7WiH+Kg5gdpdqp6LbKcMI+ 3t0A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531d/Dc4MR+CGa5YEI/bJtjn5gGW0C9UzbghGo7LUJUziybeY1yr ypJNDloSUGB9rM01rDQFu6iF0hEoCfpny62eQ9bG4A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx//CkLH61Xww8j3pQhhGFZ0Z/pvJq9S3j4VGvVBlyYQOY64PQR0KUIq7YPJnKRcK4hQjw+ZlacPbmdLQlap9Y= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1546:: with SMTP id j6mr4969555ilu.299.1617854034862; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 20:53:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210408131117.7f2f3a29@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20210408131117.7f2f3a29@canb.auug.org.au> From: "Cong Wang ." Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 20:53:44 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [External] linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the bpf tree To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: David Miller , Daniel Borkmann , Alexei Starovoitov , Networking , John Fastabend , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 8:11 PM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: > > net/core/skmsg.c > > between commit: > > 144748eb0c44 ("bpf, sockmap: Fix incorrect fwd_alloc accounting") > > from the bpf tree and commit: > > e3526bb92a20 ("skmsg: Move sk_redir from TCP_SKB_CB to skb") > > from the net-next tree. > > I fixed it up (I think - 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. Looks good from my quick glance. Thanks!