linux-next: manual merge of the mlx5-next tree with the kspp-gustavo tree

linux-next: manual merge of the mlx5-next tree with the kspp-gustavo tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2251 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the mlx5-next tree got a conflict in:

  include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h

between commit:

  3ba225b506a2 ("treewide: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member")

from the kspp-gustavo tree and commit:

  d65dbedfd298 ("net/mlx5: Add support for COPY steering action")

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 include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
index 8d30f18dcdee,fb243848132d..000000000000
--- a/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
+++ b/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
@@@ -5743,7 -5771,7 +5771,7 @@@ struct mlx5_ifc_alloc_modify_header_con
  	u8         reserved_at_68[0x10];
  	u8         num_of_actions[0x8];
  
- 	union mlx5_ifc_set_action_in_add_action_in_auto_bits actions[];
 -	union mlx5_ifc_set_add_copy_action_in_auto_bits actions[0];
++	union mlx5_ifc_set_add_copy_action_in_auto_bits actions[];
  };
  
  struct mlx5_ifc_dealloc_modify_header_context_out_bits {
@@@ -9677,9 -9705,32 +9705,32 @@@ struct mlx5_ifc_mcda_reg_bits 
  
  	u8         reserved_at_60[0x20];
  
 -	u8         data[0][0x20];
 +	u8         data[][0x20];
  };
  
+ enum {
+ 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_TYPE_FULL_CHIP = BIT(0),
+ 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_TYPE_NET_PORT_ALIVE = BIT(1),
+ };
+ 
+ enum {
+ 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_LEVEL0 = BIT(0),
+ 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_LEVEL3 = BIT(3),
+ 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_LEVEL6 = BIT(6),
+ };
+ 
+ struct mlx5_ifc_mfrl_reg_bits {
+ 	u8         reserved_at_0[0x20];
+ 
+ 	u8         reserved_at_20[0x2];
+ 	u8         pci_sync_for_fw_update_start[0x1];
+ 	u8         pci_sync_for_fw_update_resp[0x2];
+ 	u8         rst_type_sel[0x3];
+ 	u8         reserved_at_28[0x8];
+ 	u8         reset_type[0x8];
+ 	u8         reset_level[0x8];
+ };
+ 
  struct mlx5_ifc_mirc_reg_bits {
  	u8         reserved_at_0[0x18];
  	u8         status_code[0x8];

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mlx5-next tree with the kspp-gustavo tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2588 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:06:25 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the mlx5-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   3ba225b506a2 ("treewide: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member")
> 
> from the kspp-gustavo tree and commit:
> 
>   d65dbedfd298 ("net/mlx5: Add support for COPY steering action")
> 
> 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 include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
> index 8d30f18dcdee,fb243848132d..000000000000
> --- a/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
> @@@ -5743,7 -5771,7 +5771,7 @@@ struct mlx5_ifc_alloc_modify_header_con
>   	u8         reserved_at_68[0x10];
>   	u8         num_of_actions[0x8];
>   
> - 	union mlx5_ifc_set_action_in_add_action_in_auto_bits actions[];
>  -	union mlx5_ifc_set_add_copy_action_in_auto_bits actions[0];
> ++	union mlx5_ifc_set_add_copy_action_in_auto_bits actions[];
>   };
>   
>   struct mlx5_ifc_dealloc_modify_header_context_out_bits {
> @@@ -9677,9 -9705,32 +9705,32 @@@ struct mlx5_ifc_mcda_reg_bits 
>   
>   	u8         reserved_at_60[0x20];
>   
>  -	u8         data[0][0x20];
>  +	u8         data[][0x20];
>   };
>   
> + enum {
> + 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_TYPE_FULL_CHIP = BIT(0),
> + 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_TYPE_NET_PORT_ALIVE = BIT(1),
> + };
> + 
> + enum {
> + 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_LEVEL0 = BIT(0),
> + 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_LEVEL3 = BIT(3),
> + 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_LEVEL6 = BIT(6),
> + };
> + 
> + struct mlx5_ifc_mfrl_reg_bits {
> + 	u8         reserved_at_0[0x20];
> + 
> + 	u8         reserved_at_20[0x2];
> + 	u8         pci_sync_for_fw_update_start[0x1];
> + 	u8         pci_sync_for_fw_update_resp[0x2];
> + 	u8         rst_type_sel[0x3];
> + 	u8         reserved_at_28[0x8];
> + 	u8         reset_type[0x8];
> + 	u8         reset_level[0x8];
> + };
> + 
>   struct mlx5_ifc_mirc_reg_bits {
>   	u8         reserved_at_0[0x18];
>   	u8         status_code[0x8];

This is now a conflict between the net-next and kspp-gustavo trees.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mlx5-next tree with the kspp-gustavo tree

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

Hi Stephen,

On 4/30/20 22:12, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:06:25 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the mlx5-next tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   3ba225b506a2 ("treewide: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member")
>>
>> from the kspp-gustavo tree and commit:
>>
>>   d65dbedfd298 ("net/mlx5: Add support for COPY steering action")
>>
>> 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 include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
>> index 8d30f18dcdee,fb243848132d..000000000000
>> --- a/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
>> @@@ -5743,7 -5771,7 +5771,7 @@@ struct mlx5_ifc_alloc_modify_header_con
>>   	u8         reserved_at_68[0x10];
>>   	u8         num_of_actions[0x8];
>>   
>> - 	union mlx5_ifc_set_action_in_add_action_in_auto_bits actions[];
>>  -	union mlx5_ifc_set_add_copy_action_in_auto_bits actions[0];
>> ++	union mlx5_ifc_set_add_copy_action_in_auto_bits actions[];
>>   };
>>   
>>   struct mlx5_ifc_dealloc_modify_header_context_out_bits {
>> @@@ -9677,9 -9705,32 +9705,32 @@@ struct mlx5_ifc_mcda_reg_bits 
>>   
>>   	u8         reserved_at_60[0x20];
>>   
>>  -	u8         data[0][0x20];
>>  +	u8         data[][0x20];
>>   };
>>   
>> + enum {
>> + 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_TYPE_FULL_CHIP = BIT(0),
>> + 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_TYPE_NET_PORT_ALIVE = BIT(1),
>> + };
>> + 
>> + enum {
>> + 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_LEVEL0 = BIT(0),
>> + 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_LEVEL3 = BIT(3),
>> + 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_LEVEL6 = BIT(6),
>> + };
>> + 
>> + struct mlx5_ifc_mfrl_reg_bits {
>> + 	u8         reserved_at_0[0x20];
>> + 
>> + 	u8         reserved_at_20[0x2];
>> + 	u8         pci_sync_for_fw_update_start[0x1];
>> + 	u8         pci_sync_for_fw_update_resp[0x2];
>> + 	u8         rst_type_sel[0x3];
>> + 	u8         reserved_at_28[0x8];
>> + 	u8         reset_type[0x8];
>> + 	u8         reset_level[0x8];
>> + };
>> + 
>>   struct mlx5_ifc_mirc_reg_bits {
>>   	u8         reserved_at_0[0x18];
>>   	u8         status_code[0x8];
> 
> This is now a conflict between the net-next and kspp-gustavo trees.
> 

Thanks for reporting this. I think the best solution, for now, is to remove the
changes from my tree. I'll do it right away.

Thanks
--
Gustavo

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mlx5-next tree with the kspp-gustavo tree

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

Stephen,

On 4/30/20 22:30, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

>> This is now a conflict between the net-next and kspp-gustavo trees.
>>
> 
> Thanks for reporting this. I think the best solution, for now, is to remove the
> changes from my tree. I'll do it right away.
> 

I just updated my -next tree. This conflict should be resolved now. :)

Thanks
--
Gustavo