On 05/07/2018 06:10 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:09:09 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
--
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
