From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753051Ab3EUUEl (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2013 16:04:41 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:58154 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751984Ab3EUUEk (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2013 16:04:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 13:04:38 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann , David Miller , , Nicolas Schichan Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the net-next tree Message-Id: <20130521130438.1ecdf535ab2461888abbe0c3@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20130521142948.444f09820c5406f9adc4b7f1@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20130521142948.444f09820c5406f9adc4b7f1@canb.auug.org.au> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.2.0beta5 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:29:48 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in > arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c between commit aafc787e41fd ("arm: bpf_jit: can > call module_free() from any context") from the net-next tree and commit > "bpf: add comments explaining the schedule_work() operation" from the > akpm tree. > > The former means that the latter is no longer required, so I used the > former and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). Yes, there have been a lot of conflicts in seccomp-add-generic-code-for-jitted-seccomp-filters.patch arm-net-bpf_jit-make-code-generation-less-dependent-on-struct-sk_filter.patch arm-net-bpf_jit-make-code-generation-less-dependent-on-struct-sk_filter-fixup-merge-conflict.patch arm-net-bpf_jit-add-support-for-jitted-seccomp-filters.patch recently and I'm presently seeing a compilation error. Nicolas, I think the patches need a re-check so I'll drop the versions which I presently have. Please refresh, retest and resend when convenient? It'll need to be against linux-next, which is where the conflicting (vfree/module_free) changes have occurred.