Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: net/mptcp/protocol.c between commit: adf1bb78dab5 ("mptcp: fix snd_wnd initialization for passive socket") from the net tree and commits: d440a4e27acd ("mptcp: annotate lockless access for the tx path") 9426ce476a70 ("mptcp: annotate lockless access for RX path fields") from the net-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 net/mptcp/protocol.c index 7833a49f6214,9df4eaddfd48..000000000000 --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.c +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.c @@@ -3242,25 -3204,18 +3247,25 @@@ struct sock *mptcp_sk_clone_init(const __mptcp_init_sock(nsk); +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MPTCP_IPV6) + if (nsk->sk_family == AF_INET6) + mptcp_copy_ip6_options(nsk, sk); + else +#endif + mptcp_copy_ip_options(nsk, sk); + msk = mptcp_sk(nsk); - msk->local_key = subflow_req->local_key; - msk->token = subflow_req->token; + WRITE_ONCE(msk->local_key, subflow_req->local_key); + WRITE_ONCE(msk->token, subflow_req->token); msk->in_accept_queue = 1; WRITE_ONCE(msk->fully_established, false); if (mp_opt->suboptions & OPTION_MPTCP_CSUMREQD) WRITE_ONCE(msk->csum_enabled, true); - msk->write_seq = subflow_req->idsn + 1; - msk->snd_nxt = msk->write_seq; - msk->snd_una = msk->write_seq; - msk->wnd_end = msk->snd_nxt + tcp_sk(ssk)->snd_wnd; + WRITE_ONCE(msk->write_seq, subflow_req->idsn + 1); + WRITE_ONCE(msk->snd_nxt, msk->write_seq); + WRITE_ONCE(msk->snd_una, msk->write_seq); - WRITE_ONCE(msk->wnd_end, msk->snd_nxt + req->rsk_rcv_wnd); ++ WRITE_ONCE(msk->wnd_end, msk->snd_nxt + tcp_sk(ssk)->snd_wnd); msk->setsockopt_seq = mptcp_sk(sk)->setsockopt_seq; mptcp_init_sched(msk, mptcp_sk(sk)->sched);