2018-04-26 00:53:17

by Stephen Rothwell

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net-next tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:

tools/testing/selftests/bpf/.gitignore

between commit:

0abf854d7cbb ("selftests: bpf: update .gitignore with missing generated files")

from the net-next tree and commit:

b6fd9cf796e6 ("selftests: bpf: update .gitignore with missing file")

from the bpf-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 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/.gitignore
index 5e1ab2f0eb79,da19f0562bf8..000000000000
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/.gitignore
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/.gitignore
@@@ -12,6 -12,4 +12,7 @@@ test_tcpbpf_use
test_verifier_log
feature
test_libbpf_open
+ test_btf
+test_sock
+test_sock_addr
+urandom_read


Attachments:
(No filename) (499.00 B)
OpenPGP digital signature

2018-04-26 07:57:58

by Daniel Borkmann

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net-next tree

On 04/26/2018 02:49 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/.gitignore
>
> between commit:
>
> 0abf854d7cbb ("selftests: bpf: update .gitignore with missing generated files")
>
> from the net-next tree and commit:
>
> b6fd9cf796e6 ("selftests: bpf: update .gitignore with missing file")
>
> from the bpf-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.

Looks good, thanks!