From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:23:03 +1100 Message-ID: <20170131122303.5a5bb47a@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller , Networking Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hadar Hen Zion , Saeed Mahameed , Or Gerlitz List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c between commit: 3e621b19b0bb ("net/mlx5e: Support TC encapsulation offloads with upper devices") from the net tree and commits: 75c33da82736 ("net/mlx5e: TC ipv4 tunnel encap offload cosmetic changes") 9a941117fb76 ("net/mlx5e: Maximize ip tunnel key usage on the TC offloading path") from the net-next 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. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell diff --cc drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c index c5282b6aba8b,640f10f2e994..000000000000 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c @@@ -660,13 -684,10 +684,11 @@@ static int mlx5e_route_lookup_ipv4(stru struct net_device **out_dev, struct flowi4 *fl4, struct neighbour **out_n, - __be32 *saddr, int *out_ttl) { + struct mlx5_eswitch *esw = priv->mdev->priv.eswitch; struct rtable *rt; struct neighbour *n = NULL; - int ttl; #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INET) int ret; @@@ -678,21 -699,21 +700,19 @@@ #else return -EOPNOTSUPP; #endif - - if (!switchdev_port_same_parent_id(priv->netdev, rt->dst.dev)) { - pr_warn("%s: can't offload, devices not on same HW e-switch\n", __func__); - ip_rt_put(rt); - return -EOPNOTSUPP; - } + /* if the egress device isn't on the same HW e-switch, we use the uplink */ + if (!switchdev_port_same_parent_id(priv->netdev, rt->dst.dev)) + *out_dev = mlx5_eswitch_get_uplink_netdev(esw); + else + *out_dev = rt->dst.dev; - ttl = ip4_dst_hoplimit(&rt->dst); + *out_ttl = ip4_dst_hoplimit(&rt->dst); n = dst_neigh_lookup(&rt->dst, &fl4->daddr); ip_rt_put(rt); if (!n) return -ENOMEM; *out_n = n; - *saddr = fl4->saddr; - *out_ttl = ttl; - *out_dev = rt->dst.dev; return 0; }