Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rdma tree with the net tree

From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Shay Drory <shayd@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rdma tree with the net tree
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 21:03:45 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220519040345.6yrjromcdistu7vh@sx1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220519113529.226bc3e2@canb.auug.org.au>

On 19 May 11:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Today's linux-next merge of the rdma tree got a conflict in:
>
>  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/main.c
>
>between commit:
>
>  b33886971dbc ("net/mlx5: Initialize flow steering during driver probe")
>
>from the net tree and commits:
>
>  40379a0084c2 ("net/mlx5_fpga: Drop INNOVA TLS support")
>  f2b41b32cde8 ("net/mlx5: Remove ipsec_ops function table")
>
>from the rdma 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/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/main.c
>index ef196cb764e2,d504c8cb8f96..000000000000
>--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/main.c
>+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/main.c
>@@@ -1192,15 -1181,7 +1190,7 @@@ static int mlx5_load(struct mlx5_core_d
>  		goto err_fpga_start;
>  	}
>
>- 	mlx5_accel_ipsec_init(dev);
>-
>- 	err = mlx5_accel_tls_init(dev);
>- 	if (err) {
>- 		mlx5_core_err(dev, "TLS device start failed %d\n", err);
>- 		goto err_tls_start;
>- 	}
>-
> -	err = mlx5_init_fs(dev);
> +	err = mlx5_fs_core_init(dev);
>  	if (err) {
>  		mlx5_core_err(dev, "Failed to init flow steering\n");
>  		goto err_fs;
>@@@ -1245,11 -1226,8 +1235,8 @@@ err_ec
>  err_vhca:
>  	mlx5_vhca_event_stop(dev);
>  err_set_hca:
> -	mlx5_cleanup_fs(dev);
> +	mlx5_fs_core_cleanup(dev);
>  err_fs:
>- 	mlx5_accel_tls_cleanup(dev);
>- err_tls_start:
>- 	mlx5_accel_ipsec_cleanup(dev);
>  	mlx5_fpga_device_stop(dev);
>  err_fpga_start:
>  	mlx5_rsc_dump_cleanup(dev);
>@@@ -1274,9 -1252,7 +1261,7 @@@ static void mlx5_unload(struct mlx5_cor
>  	mlx5_ec_cleanup(dev);
>  	mlx5_sf_hw_table_destroy(dev);
>  	mlx5_vhca_event_stop(dev);
> -	mlx5_cleanup_fs(dev);
> +	mlx5_fs_core_cleanup(dev);
>- 	mlx5_accel_ipsec_cleanup(dev);
>- 	mlx5_accel_tls_cleanup(dev);
>  	mlx5_fpga_device_stop(dev);
>  	mlx5_rsc_dump_cleanup(dev);
>  	mlx5_hv_vhca_cleanup(dev->hv_vhca);

I already mentioned this to the netdev maintainers, same conflict should
appear in net-next, this is the correct resolution, Thanks Stephen.