Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next tree

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 05/07/2018 06:10 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:09:09 +1000 Stephen Rothwell  
> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   e782bdcf58c5 ("bpf, x64: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
>>
>> from the bpf-next tree and commit:
>>
>>   5f26c50143f5 ("x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code 
>> more readable")
>>
>> from the tip tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (the former commit removed some code modified by the latter,
>> so I just removed it) 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.
> 
> Actually the tip tree commit has been added to the bpf-next tree as a
> different commit, so dropping it from the tip tree will clean this up.

Yep, it's been cherry-picked into bpf-next to avoid merge conflicts with
ongoing work.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next tree

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 05/07/2018 06:10 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:09:09 +1000 Stephen Rothwell  
> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   e782bdcf58c5 ("bpf, x64: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
>>
>> from the bpf-next tree and commit:
>>
>>   5f26c50143f5 ("x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code 
>> more readable")
>>
>> from the tip tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (the former commit removed some code modified by the latter,
>> so I just removed it) 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.
> 
> Actually the tip tree commit has been added to the bpf-next tree as a
> different commit, so dropping it from the tip tree will clean this up.

Yep, it's been cherry-picked into bpf-next to avoid merge conflicts with
ongoing work.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:09:09 +1000 Stephen Rothwell  
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   e782bdcf58c5 ("bpf, x64: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
> 
> from the bpf-next tree and commit:
> 
>   5f26c50143f5 ("x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code 
> more readable")
> 
> from the tip tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the former commit removed some code modified by the latter,
> so I just removed it) 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.

Actually the tip tree commit has been added to the bpf-next tree as a
different commit, so dropping it from the tip tree will clean this up.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell


pgpUyPYFCBZVk.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:09:09 +1000 Stephen Rothwell  
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   e782bdcf58c5 ("bpf, x64: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
> 
> from the bpf-next tree and commit:
> 
>   5f26c50143f5 ("x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code 
> more readable")
> 
> from the tip tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the former commit removed some code modified by the latter,
> so I just removed it) 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.

Actually the tip tree commit has been added to the bpf-next tree as a
different commit, so dropping it from the tip tree will clean this up.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell


pgpUyPYFCBZVk.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:

  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c

between commit:

  e782bdcf58c5 ("bpf, x64: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")

from the bpf-next tree and commit:

  5f26c50143f5 ("x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code more 
readable")

from the tip tree.

I fixed it up (the former commit removed some code modified by the latter,
so I just removed it) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell


pgp1ZI18qZ2OF.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the bpf-next tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:

  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c

between commit:

  e782bdcf58c5 ("bpf, x64: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")

from the bpf-next tree and commit:

  5f26c50143f5 ("x86/bpf: Clean up non-standard comments, to make the code more 
readable")

from the tip tree.

I fixed it up (the former commit removed some code modified by the latter,
so I just removed it) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell


pgp1ZI18qZ2OF.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature