From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5BC872 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 20:39:11 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10044"; a="210055270" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,237,1620716400"; d="scan'208";a="210055270" Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Jul 2021 13:39:09 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,237,1620716400"; d="scan'208";a="412573980" Received: from tpierc1x-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.209.110.90]) by orsmga006-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Jul 2021 13:39:09 -0700 Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 13:39:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Mat Martineau To: Geliang Tang cc: mptcp@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MPTCP][PATCH v2 mptcp-next] Squash to "mptcp: build ADD_ADDR/echo-ADD_ADDR option according pm.add_signal" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <656b5aa6-f697-a35-2aa6-53ec2aec2cfc@linux.intel.com> References: <756dcceaa255c54b7bd195c719ede1f7ae791eb3.1626158100.git.geliangtang@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mptcp@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 13 Jul 2021, Geliang Tang wrote: > This squash-to patch will conflict with "mptcp: remove > MPTCP_ADD_ADDR_IPV6 and MPTCP_ADD_ADDR_PORT": > > Auto-merging net/mptcp/protocol.h > CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in net/mptcp/protocol.h > Auto-merging net/mptcp/pm.c > error: could not apply bf1fec79a2bf... mptcp: remove > MPTCP_ADD_ADDR_IPV6 and MPTCP_ADD_ADDR_PORT > > Please fix it like this: > > <<<<<<< HEAD > static inline bool mptcp_pm_should_add_signal_ipv6(struct mptcp_sock *msk) > { > return (mptcp_pm_should_add_signal_addr(msk) && > msk->pm.local.family == AF_INET6) || > (mptcp_pm_should_add_signal_echo(msk) && > msk->pm.remote.family == AF_INET6); > } > > static inline bool mptcp_pm_should_add_signal_port(struct mptcp_sock *msk) > { > return (mptcp_pm_should_add_signal_addr(msk) && msk->pm.local.port) || > (mptcp_pm_should_add_signal_echo(msk) && msk->pm.remote.port); > } > > ======= > >>>>>>> bf1fec79a2bf (mptcp: remove MPTCP_ADD_ADDR_IPV6 and > MPTCP_ADD_ADDR_PORT) > static inline bool mptcp_pm_should_rm_signal(struct mptcp_sock *msk) > { > return READ_ONCE(msk->pm.addr_signal) & BIT(MPTCP_RM_ADDR_SIGNAL); > } > > -> > > static inline bool mptcp_pm_should_add_signal_ipv6(struct mptcp_sock *msk) > { > return (mptcp_pm_should_add_signal_addr(msk) && > msk->pm.local.family == AF_INET6) || > (mptcp_pm_should_add_signal_echo(msk) && > msk->pm.remote.family == AF_INET6); > } > > static inline bool mptcp_pm_should_add_signal_port(struct mptcp_sock *msk) > { > return (mptcp_pm_should_add_signal_addr(msk) && msk->pm.local.port) || > (mptcp_pm_should_add_signal_echo(msk) && msk->pm.remote.port); > } > > static inline bool mptcp_pm_should_rm_signal(struct mptcp_sock *msk) > { > return READ_ONCE(msk->pm.addr_signal) & BIT(MPTCP_RM_ADDR_SIGNAL); > } > > Well, it looks like I gave my Reviewed-by tag too soon. I think it would be easier to get the correct results by posting more revisions of the patch set - don't want to introduce mistakes when trying to resolve these conflicts when applying to mptcp_net-next repo! Geliang and Yonglong, what do you think about posting v9, possibly with co-developed-by tags? -- Mat Martineau Intel