From: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 11:34:31 -0500
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Xin Long <lucien.xin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the selinux tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>> net/sctp/socket.c
>>>
>>> between several refactoring commits from the net-next tree and commit:
>>>
>>> 2277c7cd75e3 ("sctp: Add LSM hooks")
>>>
>>> from the selinux tree.
>>>
>>> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as
>> The fixup is great! the same as I mentioned in:
>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/879898/
>> for net-next.git
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> [net-next,0/9] sctp: clean up sctp_sendmsg, this patchset was just applied
>> in net-next. So I just guess it might not yet be there when selinux tree was
>> being submitted.
>
> The selinux/next branch is based on v4.16-rc1 and doesn't feed into
> the netdev tree, it goes straight to Linus during the merge window so
> unfortunately I think we may need to carry this for some time and
> relay this fix-up patch up to Linus during the merge window.
What a mess.
The SCTP option changes should have gone through my tree in retrospect.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
