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

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1984 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 13:58:46 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> 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.

-- 
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 rdma tree

[Leon Romanovsky]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2126 bytes --]

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 <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> 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



[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2254 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Mon, 6 May 2019 14:01:47 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> 
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 13:58:46 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> 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.

And now between the rdma tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
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 rdma tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1592 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 12:47:38 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the mlx5-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/cq.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   e39afe3d6dbd ("RDMA: Convert CQ allocations to be under core responsibility")
> 
> from the rdma tree and commit:
> 
>   38164b771947 ("net/mlx5: mlx5_core_create_cq() enhancements")
> 
> 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/cq.c
> index bfe3efdd77d7,4efbbd2fce0c..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/cq.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/cq.c
> @@@ -891,7 -891,8 +891,8 @@@ int mlx5_ib_create_cq(struct ib_cq *ibc
>   	int entries = attr->cqe;
>   	int vector = attr->comp_vector;
>   	struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev = to_mdev(ibdev);
> + 	u32 out[MLX5_ST_SZ_DW(create_cq_out)];
>  -	struct mlx5_ib_cq *cq;
>  +	struct mlx5_ib_cq *cq = to_mcq(ibcq);
>   	int uninitialized_var(index);
>   	int uninitialized_var(inlen);
>   	u32 *cqb = NULL;

This is now a conflict between the net-next tree and the rdma tree.

-- 
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 rdma tree

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 01:28:37PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 12:47:38 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the mlx5-next tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/cq.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   e39afe3d6dbd ("RDMA: Convert CQ allocations to be under core responsibility")
> > 
> > from the rdma tree and commit:
> > 
> >   38164b771947 ("net/mlx5: mlx5_core_create_cq() enhancements")
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> This is now a conflict between the net-next tree and the rdma tree.

You'll see the mlx5-next merge with rdma tomorrow that will take care
of this

Thanks,
Jason