| Message ID | 20200526131243.0915e58c@canb.auug.org.au |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
| Series | linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the bpf tree | expand |
On 2020-05-26 05:12, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > 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. The fix looks good! I'll keep this is mind, and try not to repeat similar conflicts for future patches. Thanks for the fixup, and for the clarification! Cheers, Björn
diff --cc net/xdp/xdp_umem.c index 3889bd9aec46,19e59d1a5e9f..000000000000 --- a/net/xdp/xdp_umem.c
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: net/xdp/xdp_umem.c between commit: b16a87d0aef7 ("xsk: Add overflow check for u64 division, stored into u32") from the bpf tree and commit: 2b43470add8c ("xsk: Introduce AF_XDP buffer allocation API") 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.