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

2017-11-12 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:55:47 + Mark Brown wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > net/ipv4/tcp_output.c > > between commit: > > 6aa7de059173a ("locking/atomics: COCCINELLE/treewide: Convert trivial > ACCESS_ONCE() patterns to READ_ONCE()/WRIT

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

2017-11-04 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Alexei, On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:27:14 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > Also what do you mean by "same patch != same commit" ? > Like if we had pushed to some 3rd tree first and then pulled > into tip and net-next it would have been better? Well, it would not have caused a conflict. -- Chee

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

2017-11-01 Thread Alexei Starovoitov
On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:55:24AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:27:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of

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

2017-11-01 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Peter, On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:55:24 +0100 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Hmm, I thought having that same base patch in both trees would allow it > to resolve that conflict. A well.. There is a difference between having he same patch and the same commit ... -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell

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

2017-11-01 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:27:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > >

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

2017-11-01 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:27:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > > > >

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

2017-11-01 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > > > > between commits: > > > > 97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for s

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

2017-11-01 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > > between commits: > > 97562633bcba ("bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers") > and more changes ...

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

2017-09-04 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Dave, On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:47:02 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/lio_main.c > > between commit: > > d1d97ee6e3a8 ("liquidio: moved liquidio_napi_drv_callback to lio_core.c") > > fr

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

2017-02-20 Thread Daniel Borkmann
On 02/20/2017 02:22 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: kernel/extable.c between commit: 74451e66d516 ("bpf: make jited programs visible in traces") from the net-next tree and commit: 5b485629ba0d ("kprobes, extable: Ident