From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the bpf tree Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:57:06 +0200 Message-ID: <57a9e2f1-fb96-a6f9-246b-19b84cca1992@iogearbox.net> References: <20180426105313.792db06a@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , John Fastabend To: Stephen Rothwell , Alexei Starovoitov , Networking Return-path: Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:49569 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753677AbeDZH5K (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2018 03:57:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20180426105313.792db06a@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/26/2018 02:53 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in: > > samples/sockmap/Makefile > > between commit: > > 4dfe1bb95235 ("bpf: sockmap sample use clang flag, -target bpf") > > from the bpf tree and commit: > > 2e04eb1dd1ca ("bpf: sockmap, remove samples program") > > from the bpf-next tree. > > I fixed it up (I just removed the file) 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. That's correct as well, thank you!