Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: cYCDDN57SYWv3gyfhkPgFALO1bAQ1n50S0EEuww/sV5j2DMP69Qw3F17neFOipxamcHQpvJ0yn
 v+L6BmG3xc0w==
IronPort-SDR: VrZAgiJ3sCkCb6lsrASVA/z7T1Akr6WTiyRnpRtyLJz1jkmpGlnpYfXcfHJwoMgpPXPumxxKZ8
 7Gi3cm0LtUmQ==
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the bpf tree
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20200526131243.0915e58c@canb.auug.org.au>
From:   =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn.topel@intel.com>
Message-ID: <56beee70-d2a7-e3d7-d37d-863c52d4e833@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 07:45:49 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200526131243.0915e58c@canb.auug.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-05-26 05:12, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 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.

The fix looks good!

I'll keep this is mind, and try not to repeat similar conflicts for 
future patches.

Thanks for the fixup, and for the clarification!


Cheers,
Bj?rn