From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the rdma tree Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 11:45:39 +1000 Message-ID: <20180815114539.34e066e1@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20180726135804.0257047e@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/uGvrInghv6l22HbdGxyUkCh"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180726135804.0257047e@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Ledford , Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Jens Axboe , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Bart Van Assche , Max Gurtovoy , Christoph Hellwig List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org --Sig_/uGvrInghv6l22HbdGxyUkCh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:58:04 +1000 Stephen Rothwell = wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: >=20 > drivers/nvme/target/rdma.c >=20 > between commit: >=20 > 23f96d1f15a7 ("nvmet-rdma: Simplify ib_post_(send|recv|srq_recv)() call= s") > 202093848cac ("nvmet-rdma: add an error flow for post_recv failures") >=20 > from the rdma tree and commits: >=20 > 2fc464e2162c ("nvmet-rdma: add unlikely check in the fast path") >=20 > from the block tree. >=20 > 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. >=20 > --=20 > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell >=20 > diff --cc drivers/nvme/target/rdma.c > index 1a642e214a4c,e7f43d1e1779..000000000000 > --- a/drivers/nvme/target/rdma.c > +++ b/drivers/nvme/target/rdma.c > @@@ -382,13 -435,22 +435,21 @@@ static void nvmet_rdma_free_rsps(struc > static int nvmet_rdma_post_recv(struct nvmet_rdma_device *ndev, > struct nvmet_rdma_cmd *cmd) > { > - struct ib_recv_wr *bad_wr; > + int ret; > +=20 > ib_dma_sync_single_for_device(ndev->device, > cmd->sge[0].addr, cmd->sge[0].length, > DMA_FROM_DEVICE); > =20 > if (ndev->srq) > - return ib_post_srq_recv(ndev->srq, &cmd->wr, NULL); > - return ib_post_recv(cmd->queue->cm_id->qp, &cmd->wr, NULL); > - ret =3D ib_post_srq_recv(ndev->srq, &cmd->wr, &bad_wr); > ++ ret =3D ib_post_srq_recv(ndev->srq, &cmd->wr, NULL); > + else > - ret =3D ib_post_recv(cmd->queue->cm_id->qp, &cmd->wr, &bad_wr); > ++ ret =3D ib_post_recv(cmd->queue->cm_id->qp, &cmd->wr, NULL); > +=20 > + if (unlikely(ret)) > + pr_err("post_recv cmd failed\n"); > +=20 > + return ret; > } > =20 > static void nvmet_rdma_process_wr_wait_list(struct nvmet_rdma_queue *qu= eue) > @@@ -491,7 -553,7 +552,7 @@@ static void nvmet_rdma_queue_response(s > rsp->send_sge.addr, rsp->send_sge.length, > DMA_TO_DEVICE); > =20 > - if (ib_post_send(cm_id->qp, first_wr, NULL)) { > - if (unlikely(ib_post_send(cm_id->qp, first_wr, &bad_wr))) { > ++ if (unlikely(ib_post_send(cm_id->qp, first_wr, NULL))) { > pr_err("sending cmd response failed\n"); > nvmet_rdma_release_rsp(rsp); > } This is now a conflict between Linus' tree and the rdma tree. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell --Sig_/uGvrInghv6l22HbdGxyUkCh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAltzhcMACgkQAVBC80lX 0Gz5Twf/WTBitw/e7LzZv6VSBRZGzjVM1u6Z9lkiDtilGfxLVlZVb/TYCQ40liZ+ CmffmEIVejwXqC3SRQpByXBVUfELeXNJlHHBK6gWXt7uo63NSkqbCHY04fUM1I3n cAoExhVg6Qggxf4xJ2Qs0hKxIam6Ms7RRqIGACcI93pGO9YbPvYy8To9EdBsx1x0 FTQpPOKvlkU9p0MZCZ6lYt1zCGiJcEsYsdVf7cGrRYI0gFdqsfVhVH00SxMrsLKd +rJr1D5Ev7x04kg/7grU0qVZn0e5+pLFytIKvRCDSIBNYxj1S2RPorb+y7fVU8oH 8qK6xWqDBCMzp27ukRri+kU/ZeUgoQ== =WcCg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/uGvrInghv6l22HbdGxyUkCh--