> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 2:14 PM
> To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; David Miller
> <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Networking <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux Kernel
> Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Vakul Garg
> <vakul.garg@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree
>
> On 09/18/2018 02:11 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 50c6b58a814d ("tls: fix currently broken MSG_PEEK behavior")
> >
> > from the net tree and commit:
> >
> > c2ad647c6442 ("selftests/tls: Add test for recv(PEEK) spanning
> > across multiple records")
> >
> > 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.
>
> The test from 50c6b58a814d supersedes the one from c2ad647c6442 so the
> recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs could be removed; latter was also not
> working correctly due to this bug.
Why remove recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs if its correct?
Why not the newly added one which achieves the same thing?
Regards, Vakul
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
