Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with Linus' tree
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
References: <20170324110514.0376c46f@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20170323.171035.27948034948873194.davem@davemloft.net>
CC: <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <kafai@fb.com>
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>
Message-ID: <9414bc03-4b88-83e3-0cd7-9c227b756da9@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:24:11 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170323.171035.27948034948873194.davem@davemloft.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Mar 2017 01:24:14.4884 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1PR15MB0968
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-03-23_23:,,
 signatures=0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1013
Lines: 33

On 3/23/17 5:10 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:05:14 +1100
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   8c290e60fa2a ("bpf: fix hashmap extra_elems logic")
>>
>> from Linus' tree and commit:
>>
>>   bcc6b1b7ebf8 ("bpf: Add hash of maps support")
>>
>> 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.
>
> I did the same resolution just an hour ago when merging net into
> net-next.

yes. that's correct merge conflict resolution.
Just rebuilt and retested. All looks good.
Thanks!