Message-ID: <583D20FE.7060707@iogearbox.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 07:32:30 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
CC: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree
References: <20161129113126.2626e7fe@canb.auug.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20161129113126.2626e7fe@canb.auug.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 816
Lines: 25

On 11/29/2016 01:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>    net/sched/cls_flower.c
>
> between commit:
>
>    d936377414fa ("net, sched: respect rcu grace period on cls destruction")
>
> from the net tree and commit:
>
>    13fa876ebd03 ("net/sched: cls_flower: merge filter delete/destroy common code")
>
> 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.

Looks good to me, thanks!