linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rdma tree with Linus' tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 5 Nov 2019 02:21:13 +0000
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:     Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rdma tree with Linus' tree

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 12:17:04PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rdma tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   1524b12a6e02 ("RDMA/mlx5: Use irq xarray locking for mkey_table")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   806b101b2bfa ("RDMA/mlx5: Use a dedicated mkey xarray for ODP")
> 
> from the rdma 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/mr.c
> index 7019c12005f4,077ca10d9ed9..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> @@@ -1967,8 -1945,7 +1945,7 @@@ int mlx5_ib_dealloc_mw(struct ib_mw *mw
>   	int err;
>   
>   	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INFINIBAND_ON_DEMAND_PAGING)) {
> - 		xa_erase_irq(&dev->mdev->priv.mkey_table,
> - 			     mlx5_base_mkey(mmw->mmkey.key));
>  -		xa_erase(&dev->odp_mkeys, mlx5_base_mkey(mmw->mmkey.key));
> ++		xa_erase_irq(&dev->odp_mkeys, mlx5_base_mkey(mmw->mmkey.key));

The rdma for-next tree is right as is, the xa_erase does not need to
be the irq varient here.

Thanks,
Jason