From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the arm64 tree Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 08:05:11 +0200 Message-ID: <573AB497.2020301@iogearbox.net> References: <20160517102441.0cfbc192@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yang Shi , Will Deacon To: Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas Return-path: Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:46437 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754062AbcEQGFZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 May 2016 02:05:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160517102441.0cfbc192@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/17/2016 02:24 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: > > arch/arm64/Kconfig > > between commit: > > 8ee708792e1c ("arm64: Kconfig: remove redundant HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE definition") > > from the arm64 tree and commit: > > 6077776b5908 ("bpf: split HAVE_BPF_JIT into cBPF and eBPF variant") > > 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. Diff looks good, thanks!