* linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the s390 tree
@ 2018-05-08 0:26 Stephen Rothwell
2018-05-08 8:19 ` Daniel Borkmann
2018-05-09 4:21 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2018-05-08 0:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, Networking,
Martin Schwidefsky, Heiko Carstens
Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 748 bytes --]
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
arch/s390/net/bpf_jit.S
between commit:
de5cb6eb514e ("s390: use expoline thunks in the BPF JIT")
from the s390 tree and commit:
e1cf4befa297 ("bpf, s390x: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
from the bpf-next tree.
I fixed it up (I just removed the file as the latter does) 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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the s390 tree
2018-05-08 0:26 linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the s390 tree Stephen Rothwell
@ 2018-05-08 8:19 ` Daniel Borkmann
2018-05-09 4:21 ` Stephen Rothwell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2018-05-08 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell, Alexei Starovoitov, Networking,
Martin Schwidefsky, Heiko Carstens
Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List
On 05/08/2018 02:26 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/s390/net/bpf_jit.S
>
> between commit:
>
> de5cb6eb514e ("s390: use expoline thunks in the BPF JIT")
>
> from the s390 tree and commit:
>
> e1cf4befa297 ("bpf, s390x: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
>
> from the bpf-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just removed the file as the latter does) 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.
Yep, sounds good, thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the s390 tree
2018-05-08 0:26 linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the s390 tree Stephen Rothwell
2018-05-08 8:19 ` Daniel Borkmann
@ 2018-05-09 4:21 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-05-09 6:31 ` Daniel Borkmann
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2018-05-09 4:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Networking, Martin Schwidefsky, Heiko Carstens, David Miller
Cc: Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, Linux-Next Mailing List,
Linux Kernel Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 936 bytes --]
Hi all,
On Tue, 8 May 2018 10:26:38 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/s390/net/bpf_jit.S
>
> between commit:
>
> de5cb6eb514e ("s390: use expoline thunks in the BPF JIT")
>
> from the s390 tree and commit:
>
> e1cf4befa297 ("bpf, s390x: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
>
> from the bpf-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just removed the file as the latter does) 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.
This is now a conflict between the net-next and s390 trees.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the s390 tree
2018-05-09 4:21 ` Stephen Rothwell
@ 2018-05-09 6:31 ` Daniel Borkmann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2018-05-09 6:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell, Networking, Martin Schwidefsky, Heiko Carstens,
David Miller
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Linux-Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List
On 05/09/2018 06:21 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Tue, 8 May 2018 10:26:38 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> arch/s390/net/bpf_jit.S
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> de5cb6eb514e ("s390: use expoline thunks in the BPF JIT")
>>
>> from the s390 tree and commit:
>>
>> e1cf4befa297 ("bpf, s390x: remove ld_abs/ld_ind")
>>
>> from the bpf-next tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I just removed the file as the latter does) 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.
>
> This is now a conflict between the net-next and s390 trees.
Right, bpf-next merged as usual into net-next two days ago; so same
resolution applies.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the s390 tree
@ 2025-07-04 3:11 Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2025-07-04 3:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, Andrii Nakryiko,
Heiko Carstens, Vasily Gorbik, Christian Borntraeger
Cc: bpf, Networking, Alexander Gordeev, Ilya Leoshkevich,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List, Thomas Huth
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 805 bytes --]
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
arch/s390/net/bpf_jit.h
between commit:
42398caf16c9 ("s390: Replace __ASSEMBLY__ with __ASSEMBLER__ in non-uapi headers")
from the s390 tree and commit:
e26d523edf2a ("s390/bpf: Describe the frame using a struct instead of constants")
from the bpf-next tree.
I fixed it up (the latter deleted the file, so I did that) 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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-07-04 3:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-05-08 0:26 linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the s390 tree Stephen Rothwell
2018-05-08 8:19 ` Daniel Borkmann
2018-05-09 4:21 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-05-09 6:31 ` Daniel Borkmann
2025-07-04 3:11 Stephen Rothwell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®