From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751391AbeAOXbn (ORCPT + 1 other); Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:31:43 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:58373 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751066AbeAOXbl (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:31:41 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:31:39 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell To: David Miller , Networking Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , William Tu Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree Message-ID: <20180116103139.2849da57@canb.auug.org.au> 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 Return-Path: Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: net/openvswitch/flow_netlink.c between commit: 95a332088ecb ("Revert "openvswitch: Add erspan tunnel support."") from the net tree and commit: 1d7e2ed22f8d ("net: erspan: refactor existing erspan code") from the net-next tree. I fixed it up (I removed the bits of code rmeoved by the former that were updated in the latter) 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