From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leon Romanovsky Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mlx5-next tree with the rdma tree Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 07:13:12 +0300 Message-ID: <20190506041312.GJ6938@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> References: <20190430135846.0c17df6e@canb.auug.org.au> <20190506140147.23d41ac1@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jI8keyz6grp/JLjh" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190506140147.23d41ac1@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Doug Ledford , Jason Gunthorpe , David Miller , Networking , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Vu Pham , Saeed Mahameed , Mark Bloch List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org --jI8keyz6grp/JLjh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 02:01:47PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 13:58:46 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Hi Leon, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the mlx5-next tree got a conflict in: > > > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c > > > > between commit: > > > > 35b0aa67b298 ("RDMA/mlx5: Refactor netdev affinity code") > > > > from the rdma tree and commit: > > > > c42260f19545 ("net/mlx5: Separate and generalize dma device from pci device") > > > > from the mlx5-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/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c > > index 6135a0b285de,fae6a6a1fbea..000000000000 > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c > > @@@ -200,12 -172,18 +200,12 @@@ static int mlx5_netdev_event(struct not > > > > switch (event) { > > case NETDEV_REGISTER: > > + /* Should already be registered during the load */ > > + if (ibdev->is_rep) > > + break; > > write_lock(&roce->netdev_lock); > > - if (ndev->dev.parent == &mdev->pdev->dev) > > - if (ibdev->rep) { > > - struct mlx5_eswitch *esw = ibdev->mdev->priv.eswitch; > > - struct net_device *rep_ndev; > > - > > - rep_ndev = mlx5_ib_get_rep_netdev(esw, > > - ibdev->rep->vport); > > - if (rep_ndev == ndev) > > - roce->netdev = ndev; > > - } else if (ndev->dev.parent == mdev->device) { > > ++ if (ndev->dev.parent == mdev->device) > > roce->netdev = ndev; > > - } > > write_unlock(&roce->netdev_lock); > > break; > > > > This is now a conflict between the net-next tree and the rdma tree. Thanks Stephen, Looks good. > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell --jI8keyz6grp/JLjh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYIAB0WIQT1m3YD37UfMCUQBNwp8NhrnBAZsQUCXM+0OwAKCRAp8NhrnBAZ sc9RAQDmnIWke/N+pH96y3NysRRPQo5qL4qm8zgCrYToys2YcgEAqTnEoZ5Y/T4A E1YB7CSiFyMI3G6S6lzNHE4EgrcehAk= =ruXy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jI8keyz6grp/JLjh--