Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bluetooth-fixes tree with the net tree

[Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 03:00:56PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 10/21/26 13:55, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > @netdev maintainers: Please, see below.
> > 
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 12:01:41PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the bluetooth-fixes tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >    net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >    cd37ab22a74e0 ("netfilter: nf_conntrack_netlink: fix inverted IPv6 tuple filter")
> > > 
> > > from the net tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >    1ae2d094b0200 ("netfilter: ctnetlink: fix inverted IPv6 address match in dump filter")
> > > 
> > > from the bluetooth-fixes 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.
> > 
> > Sorry for this: This patch is duplicated, one variant went into
> > net.git and another into net-next.git.
> > 
> > Two possibilities:
> > 
> > - Revert 1ae2d094b020 ("netfilter: ctnetlink: fix inverted IPv6
> >    address match in dump filter") in net-next.git
> > 
> > or
> > 
> > - Revert cd37ab22a74e ("netfilter: nf_conntrack_netlink: fix inverted
> >    IPv6 tuple filter")
> > 
> > before net-next.git gets merged into net.git, because these two
> > patches address the same issue.
>
> The 2 patches are equivalent, right? We pull net into net-next before
> sending the net-next PR; I think the easier solution would
> be manually solving the conflict at that time. I understand that accepting
> either 'net' or 'net-next' variant would be ok.

Yes, either variant should be fine.

Thanks