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;
Message-ID: <938e596f257f782f36c51b849ae7e37f3718c42b.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Date:   Fri, 28 Feb 2020 10:07:26 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20200228102451.0a3d2057@canb.auug.org.au>
References: <20200228102451.0a3d2057@canb.auug.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.5 (3.32.5-1.fc30) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2020-02-28 at 10:24 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   net/mptcp/protocol.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   dc24f8b4ecd3 ("mptcp: add dummy icsk_sync_mss()")
> 
> from the net tree and commit:
> 
>   80992017150b ("mptcp: add work queue skeleton")
> 
> 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.

Thank you, the conflict resolution looks good to me.

I did not notice the conflict beforehands, sorry.

Cheers,

Paolo