From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexei Starovoitov Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with Linus' tree Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:24:11 -0700 Message-ID: <9414bc03-4b88-83e3-0cd7-9c227b756da9@fb.com> References: <20170324110514.0376c46f@canb.auug.org.au> <20170323.171035.27948034948873194.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170323.171035.27948034948873194.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller , sfr@canb.auug.org.au Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kafai@fb.com List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On 3/23/17 5:10 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Stephen Rothwell > 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!