[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160418113116.6f7f8740@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:31:16 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Craig Gallek <kraig@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
net/ipv4/udp.c
between commit:
d894ba18d4e4 ("soreuseport: fix ordering for mixed v4/v6 sockets")
from the net tree and commit:
ca065d0cf80f ("udp: no longer use SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU")
from the net-next tree.
I tried to fixed it up (see below). Unfortunately,
hlist_add_tail_rcu() does not exist. So instead I have reverted commit
d894ba18d4e4 ("soreuseport: fix ordering for mixed v4/v6 sockets") for
today.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc net/ipv4/udp.c
index a2e7f55a1f61,f1863136d3e4..000000000000
--- a/net/ipv4/udp.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c
@@@ -339,13 -336,8 +336,13 @@@ found
hslot2 = udp_hashslot2(udptable, udp_sk(sk)->udp_portaddr_hash);
spin_lock(&hslot2->lock);
- hlist_add_head_rcu(&udp_sk(sk)->udp_portaddr_node,
- &hslot2->head);
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6) && sk->sk_reuseport &&
+ sk->sk_family == AF_INET6)
- hlist_nulls_add_tail_rcu(&udp_sk(sk)->udp_portaddr_node,
- &hslot2->head);
++ hlist_add_tail_rcu(&udp_sk(sk)->udp_portaddr_node,
++ &hslot2->head);
+ else
- hlist_nulls_add_head_rcu(&udp_sk(sk)->udp_portaddr_node,
- &hslot2->head);
++ hlist_add_head_rcu(&udp_sk(sk)->udp_portaddr_node,
++ &hslot2->head);
hslot2->count++;
spin_unlock(&hslot2->lock);
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists