From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net-next tree Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:00:15 +1100 Message-ID: <20171113170015.23e0e259@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20171030205547.pvd23ahq7xgahlke@sirena.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:41077 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751308AbdKMGAR (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 01:00:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20171030205547.pvd23ahq7xgahlke@sirena.co.uk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , David Miller , Networking Cc: Mark Brown , Mark Rutland , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi all, On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:55:47 +0000 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()/WRITE_ONCE()") > > in the tip tree and some change in 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. > > diff --cc net/ipv4/tcp_output.c > index a69a34f57330,48531da1aba6..000000000000 > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c > @@@ -1978,7 -1908,7 +1978,7 @@@ static bool tcp_tso_should_defer(struc > if ((skb != tcp_write_queue_tail(sk)) && (limit >= skb->len)) > goto send_now; > > - win_divisor = ACCESS_ONCE(sock_net(sk)->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_tso_win_divisor); > - win_divisor = READ_ONCE(sysctl_tcp_tso_win_divisor); > ++ win_divisor = READ_ONCE(sock_net(sk)->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_tso_win_divisor); > if (win_divisor) { > u32 chunk = min(tp->snd_wnd, tp->snd_cwnd * tp->mss_cache); > Just a reminder that this conflict still exists. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell