Received: by 10.223.185.116 with SMTP id b49csp3518022wrg; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 01:05:33 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226VEBGVmA14n1hrnYVzH5AZHdYdviGfE7Wh0iD02rnClZfQ3aZaZoz9vIjp5Zy7vtMTRQ8h X-Received: by 10.99.148.17 with SMTP id m17mr7872360pge.367.1519635932876; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 01:05:32 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1519635932; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=UhtwDQRHfPSskHoCW4790Wys9oNpGRRU8Lzbe+hINYxe3EfSQ/yvJhbd1V6YaF2C7l T5LGbmS0fEbUjQ+ujonObGv2j6Uw13rJ34ydUPB51zG6JNEOfPf9Zpvu2ayZzUa1NSlg G8ShYvIZCrqb8XqDTw1AcTf8pepED7yekf0d3wbKbhLCHZwsrBzkUHiFVbKOTgcyNDmC 6slmT81emv1RItZNihuoLDord+UTRhuTnNzIvpEOIKTQgghjgRbihSG2MVbKvb0xTm0I RovctvzV8IBEuwotY+At1mzrjts2pyf6F7wxY4VaQFcvdgsVe8O+38vKsiWudpXAf6lf aAQw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject:arc-authentication-results; bh=goaa/Sagvxkr8t/jORFewXBEvFLTN9OLzBHVnzM4idQ=; b=Zz3AwZfJJ52Xi9meB6uKnq3+gKY6egve0fYoWxKTV7/Kaxncmy6dTiQrjD0m/Evux5 bENAwjf5YRs1ilWqp8RgxQBcBFy5MwSRwc27cygocW4hWHjk20VVDPeD2TH9THRlB4W2 u7nxfv1lAqgjXNlKzr0sAe/PzjDtj1YC/qMB0Zrma1o2lMmWfkhEbm6KCVCmqcT0aW01 og7GUcVR7CMU9ALqRdVESkWj8JGfj+e3MslaxIcDU0HsXDaMxznpShGurTTDVRNdlN+M TAqM/g2C3+v08TKSjV0EUj1F3l2jOWHEX4mByIaFRfyTe9E0MyYYme0G6r9ypziv29oM lFFw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id l4-v6si6719268pln.121.2018.02.26.01.05.18; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 01:05:32 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752242AbeBZJES (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 04:04:18 -0500 Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:41425 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751778AbeBZJEA (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 04:04:00 -0500 Received: from [194.230.159.212] (helo=localhost.localdomain) by www62.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.85_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eqEhN-0005mK-9s; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:03:53 +0100 Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the bpf tree To: Stephen Rothwell , Alexei Starovoitov , Networking Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20180226114147.2ab5c647@canb.auug.org.au> From: Daniel Borkmann Message-ID: <0df3cf32-9f64-b0f0-3a1c-00c1ab52c939@iogearbox.net> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:03:49 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180226114147.2ab5c647@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: daniel@iogearbox.net X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (ClamAV 0.99.3/24349/Mon Feb 26 02:13:48 2018) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/26/2018 01:41 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in: > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > > between commit: > > ca36960211eb ("bpf: allow xadd only on aligned memory") > > from the bpf tree and commit: > > 23d191a82c13 ("bpf: add various jit test cases") > > 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!