From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (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 7A8D3369 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 08:51:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wr1-x42e.google.com (mail-wr1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEFEA1BF8 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 01:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3110a5f2832so237788f8f.1 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 01:51:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tessares.net; s=google; t=1686732678; x=1689324678; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=csZv0c9LfeFqbw6cbCbu3ICvitJ0rl7602V3R2VsNxA=; b=y0xvs5zH3IfzGfS8Cqi45C7XpB8PYFCfAQK61jPGRE3yj7F9qeaXocXzJP9hochIRt FpAJFuSakonsiuvOaDM5hkJApquw3g8kzHAFe4sTksiO+6SDDyt/AHGSmDSLjDXwTuUt xyNnWdcrSWWa3Gp4FRLr+qmFxscwzA7nKfmD1SdX4YyiM4wq2vYWeZHkrQe1tGQ0Zx8P B0fIFWjY/cGY+ORGO80nZu8bFrOsNgr7UrEILVyU8yyrfaAoI304xprskGodnN7yUbDL hFo+/Ph4v94TMHyUNzD6uypMMTvoa1dL5hu6jwVB11ELkwo7TAoDWiceKhCcLHXfVftE fdUQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686732678; x=1689324678; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=csZv0c9LfeFqbw6cbCbu3ICvitJ0rl7602V3R2VsNxA=; b=RVA60sXPHBRjcocPc/DaQLhSzTP0rA05Ha1IO6BE/KIG5Kz811fwbLWoineAbABV9v 9VJgeu3MirwWJoJJfYyZtnkn5OGV0XlM69L68XG30U7B1CGPYx8agWDoZL1NiLp/1z3e r29WFLLdeF1bxmPBxDYiHNLkKWtBWrfp20KEZCPTx1RtzsKkPF6DoQ8WvHhe2uCBTEY4 ZdxoVZC4KnIAG0seqBGcAy1XSxjVHQejv2ArTuoMIhVXqvxD/ODijHa9ToK3eqUd5Qf7 Zy3jYkmHWpVnHeRgvucWv5GS/WTjcPV/RQ+tysSsQLo8xXHKdMPO76HDyrKSXOaCg1HH Gfjw== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxF/Augz7LGnn+eatGJDTGwAwjyog0pHbZ/KmVvz8s/sKo2jXnI 16QyqwvaUgPFVpQ1OqHcv1DVFHY3dTFjqkQPW1jAhQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ7HWyC+8hqm8soJNvhVdmwmi6Hsvr6uxVCGpzyyBFM9Bcn+I0cxHlDDg0h52AzSzsre+piFlw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4687:0:b0:30f:ba3a:85c5 with SMTP id u7-20020a5d4687000000b0030fba3a85c5mr906084wrq.25.1686732678069; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 01:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2a02:578:8593:1200:f189:66db:5060:b402? ([2a02:578:8593:1200:f189:66db:5060:b402]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y14-20020a5d620e000000b0030ae4350212sm17657205wru.66.2023.06.14.01.51.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Jun 2023 01:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 10:51:16 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0 Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree Content-Language: en-GB To: Stephen Rothwell , David Miller Cc: Networking , Jakub Kicinski , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List , Mat Martineau , Paolo Abeni References: <20230614111752.74207e28@canb.auug.org.au> From: Matthieu Baerts In-Reply-To: <20230614111752.74207e28@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Hi Stephen, On 14/06/2023 03:17, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: > > tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/mptcp_join.sh > > between commits: > > 47867f0a7e83 ("selftests: mptcp: join: skip check if MIB counter not supported") > 425ba803124b ("selftests: mptcp: join: support RM_ADDR for used endpoints or not") > > from the net tree and commits: > > 45b1a1227a7a ("mptcp: introduces more address related mibs") > 0639fa230a21 ("selftests: mptcp: add explicit check for new mibs") > > from the net-next tree. > > I fixed it up (I think - 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. Thank you for the conflicts resolution. If I'm not mistaken, it looks good except the last chunk where the new call to chk_rm_tx_nr() should go inside the 'if' statement. So instead of this bit you have on your side: > @@@ -2394,12 -2290,8 +2399,13 @@@ remove_tests( > pm_nl_add_endpoint $ns2 10.0.4.2 flags subflow > run_tests $ns1 $ns2 10.0.1.1 0 -8 -8 slow > chk_join_nr 3 3 3 > + chk_rm_tx_nr 0 > - chk_rm_nr 0 3 simult > + > + if mptcp_lib_kversion_ge 5.18; then > + chk_rm_nr 0 3 simult > + else > + chk_rm_nr 3 3 > + fi > fi > > # addresses flush We should have: > @@@ -2394,12 -2290,8 +2399,13 @@@ remove_tests( > pm_nl_add_endpoint $ns2 10.0.4.2 flags subflow > run_tests $ns1 $ns2 10.0.1.1 0 -8 -8 slow > chk_join_nr 3 3 3 > - chk_rm_tx_nr 0 > - chk_rm_nr 0 3 simult > + > + if mptcp_lib_kversion_ge 5.18; then > ++ chk_rm_tx_nr 0 > + chk_rm_nr 0 3 simult > + else > + chk_rm_nr 3 3 > + fi > fi > > # addresses flush ("chk_rm_tx_nr 0" needs to be inside the 'if') I added a note about the conflicts on the cover-letter: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230609-upstream-net-20230610-mptcp-selftests-support-old-kernels-part-3-v1-0-2896fe2ee8a3@tessares.net/ Maybe it was not a good place? I didn't know where to put it as there were multiple patches that were conflicting with each others even if the major conflicts were between 47867f0a7e83 ("selftests: mptcp: join: skip check if MIB counter not supported") and 0639fa230a21 ("selftests: mptcp: add explicit check for new mibs"). I guess next time I should add a comment referring to the cover-letter in the patches creating conflicts. Cheers, Matt -- Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions www.tessares.net