From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mlx5-next tree with the rdma tree Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 14:01:47 +1000 Message-ID: <20190506140147.23d41ac1@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20190430135846.0c17df6e@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/vW/eo0iJa5WsE4O1KPNByGd"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190430135846.0c17df6e@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Leon Romanovsky , Doug Ledford , Jason Gunthorpe , David Miller , Networking Cc: Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Vu Pham , Saeed Mahameed , Mark Bloch List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org --Sig_/vW/eo0iJa5WsE4O1KPNByGd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 13:58:46 +1000 Stephen Rothwell = wrote: > > Hi Leon, >=20 > Today's linux-next merge of the mlx5-next tree got a conflict in: >=20 > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c >=20 > between commit: >=20 > 35b0aa67b298 ("RDMA/mlx5: Refactor netdev affinity code") >=20 > from the rdma tree and commit: >=20 > c42260f19545 ("net/mlx5: Separate and generalize dma device from pci de= vice") >=20 > from the mlx5-next 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/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 > =20 > 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 =3D=3D &mdev->pdev->dev) > - if (ibdev->rep) { > - struct mlx5_eswitch *esw =3D ibdev->mdev->priv.eswitch; > - struct net_device *rep_ndev; > - > - rep_ndev =3D mlx5_ib_get_rep_netdev(esw, > - ibdev->rep->vport); > - if (rep_ndev =3D=3D ndev) > - roce->netdev =3D ndev; > - } else if (ndev->dev.parent =3D=3D mdev->device) { > ++ if (ndev->dev.parent =3D=3D mdev->device) > roce->netdev =3D ndev; > - } > write_unlock(&roce->netdev_lock); > break; > =20 This is now a conflict between the net-next tree and the rdma tree. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell --Sig_/vW/eo0iJa5WsE4O1KPNByGd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAlzPsasACgkQAVBC80lX 0GzZWgf/eqG/54nzJcLhDHl6eODVDtlhnjK246o4r1hZcOY9BPPCZzfnt7UhQeuZ bgrHLsNtf80Et97a6omcAWmIhsIthwgYj9TMet67FdHov8m81rPnOrcewGjoXVLZ t43y04hZRMdyrMAaPyHYl2O9O/aYRAgPvn7kWZYzpruvmLm/dRE4kNRO40PDA3mz 3CaaFAbKgowu+T6W77q6NZeNhW6z5mi1lWIx8ODd2nGLrIawX4NtlXmZ7kNZRFZQ Ckerg8IawE08QNoj7f11Fe+DdOcQdbdS8gtzZvlQ09rUPA6MqtT4yFn//JnPlFcR PUreXiO2/oZ/+NKszPVhyG5n44X8bw== =wKty -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/vW/eo0iJa5WsE4O1KPNByGd--