netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net-next 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:00:15 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....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 tip tree with the net-next tree

Hi all,

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:55:47 +0000 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   6aa7de059173a ("locking/atomics: COCCINELLE/treewide: Convert trivial ACCESS_ONCE() patterns to READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE()")
> 
> in the tip tree and some change in 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.
> 
> diff --cc net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> index a69a34f57330,48531da1aba6..000000000000
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> @@@ -1978,7 -1908,7 +1978,7 @@@ static bool tcp_tso_should_defer(struc
>   	if ((skb != tcp_write_queue_tail(sk)) && (limit >= skb->len))
>   		goto send_now;
>   
> - 	win_divisor = ACCESS_ONCE(sock_net(sk)->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_tso_win_divisor);
>  -	win_divisor = READ_ONCE(sysctl_tcp_tso_win_divisor);
> ++	win_divisor = READ_ONCE(sock_net(sk)->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_tso_win_divisor);
>   	if (win_divisor) {
>   		u32 chunk = min(tp->snd_wnd, tp->snd_cwnd * tp->mss_cache);
>   

Just a reminder that this conflict still exists.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell