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

[Paolo Abeni]

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.

/P