From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the s390 tree
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:33:51 +0100
Message-ID: <58AD30CF.6040507@iogearbox.net>
References: <20170222101516.2f516e2d@canb.auug.org.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170222101516.2f516e2d@canb.auug.org.au>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org

On 02/22/2017 12:15 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>    arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>
> between commit:
>
>    9437964885f8 ("s390/bpf: remove redundant check for non-null image")
>
> from the s390 tree and commit:
>
>    9d876e79df6a ("bpf: fix unlocking of jited image when module ronx not set")
>
> 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, thanks!