Hi all,
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 19:30:48 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in:
>
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>
> between commit:
>
> b36e62eb8521 ("bpf: Use strncpy_from_unsafe_strict() in bpf_seq_printf()
> helper")
>
> from the net-ne
Hi Marc,
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 09:40:09 +0100 Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>
> On 02/07/2017 06:23 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > diff --cc drivers/net/can/flexcan.c
> > index ea57fed375c6,4dc71bce525c..
> > --- a/drivers/net/can/flexcan.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/can/flexcan.c
> > @@@ -195,9
On 02/07/2017 06:23 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/net/can/flexcan.c
>
> between commits:
>
> 9eb7aa891101 ("can: flexcan: add quirk FLEXCAN_QUIRK_ENABLE_EACEN_RRS")
> b3cf53e988ce ("can: flexcan: add s
On 05/22/2013 01:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:44:13 +0200 Daniel Borkmann wrote:
Also seccomp_jit_free() needs a change otherwise the kernel won't build
with CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER_JIT enabled since the work_struct is initialized
with the bpf_jit_free_worker
On 05/22/2013 09:19 AM, David Miller wrote:
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 00:14:58 -0700
On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:07:48 -0700 (PDT) David Miller
wrote:
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 13:04:38 -0700
Nicolas, I think the patches need a re-check so I'll drop the vers
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 00:14:58 -0700
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:07:48 -0700 (PDT) David Miller
> wrote:
>
>> From: Andrew Morton
>> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 13:04:38 -0700
>>
>> > Nicolas, I think the patches need a re-check so I'll drop the versions
>> > which I presently h
On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:07:48 -0700 (PDT) David Miller
wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton
> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 13:04:38 -0700
>
> > 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 nee
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 13:04:38 -0700
> 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_f
Hi Daniel,
On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:44:13 +0200 Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
> Also seccomp_jit_free() needs a change otherwise the kernel won't build
> with CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER_JIT enabled since the work_struct is initialized
> with the bpf_jit_free_worker() callback, which is no longer existent.
>
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: a
Hi Stephen,
On 05/21/2013 06:25 AM, 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
"ARM: net: bpf_jit
On 02/20/2013 02:02 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
net/core/dev.c between commit 900ff8c63214 ("net: move procfs code to
net/core/net-procfs.c") from the net-next tree and commit "hlist: drop
the node parameter from iterators" f
12 matches
Mail list logo
