netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mlx5-next tree with the kspp-gustavo 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]

Message-ID: <32eb40f0-a17b-5a7f-41e0-0f30a507fc31@embeddedor.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Apr 2020 22:30:57 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Huy Nguyen <huyn@...lanox.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Raed Salem <raeds@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mlx5-next tree with the
 kspp-gustavo tree

Hi Stephen,

On 4/30/20 22:12, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:06:25 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the mlx5-next tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   3ba225b506a2 ("treewide: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member")
>>
>> from the kspp-gustavo tree and commit:
>>
>>   d65dbedfd298 ("net/mlx5: Add support for COPY steering action")
>>
>> from the mlx5-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 include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
>> index 8d30f18dcdee,fb243848132d..000000000000
>> --- a/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
>> @@@ -5743,7 -5771,7 +5771,7 @@@ struct mlx5_ifc_alloc_modify_header_con
>>   	u8         reserved_at_68[0x10];
>>   	u8         num_of_actions[0x8];
>>   
>> - 	union mlx5_ifc_set_action_in_add_action_in_auto_bits actions[];
>>  -	union mlx5_ifc_set_add_copy_action_in_auto_bits actions[0];
>> ++	union mlx5_ifc_set_add_copy_action_in_auto_bits actions[];
>>   };
>>   
>>   struct mlx5_ifc_dealloc_modify_header_context_out_bits {
>> @@@ -9677,9 -9705,32 +9705,32 @@@ struct mlx5_ifc_mcda_reg_bits 
>>   
>>   	u8         reserved_at_60[0x20];
>>   
>>  -	u8         data[0][0x20];
>>  +	u8         data[][0x20];
>>   };
>>   
>> + enum {
>> + 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_TYPE_FULL_CHIP = BIT(0),
>> + 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_TYPE_NET_PORT_ALIVE = BIT(1),
>> + };
>> + 
>> + enum {
>> + 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_LEVEL0 = BIT(0),
>> + 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_LEVEL3 = BIT(3),
>> + 	MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_LEVEL6 = BIT(6),
>> + };
>> + 
>> + struct mlx5_ifc_mfrl_reg_bits {
>> + 	u8         reserved_at_0[0x20];
>> + 
>> + 	u8         reserved_at_20[0x2];
>> + 	u8         pci_sync_for_fw_update_start[0x1];
>> + 	u8         pci_sync_for_fw_update_resp[0x2];
>> + 	u8         rst_type_sel[0x3];
>> + 	u8         reserved_at_28[0x8];
>> + 	u8         reset_type[0x8];
>> + 	u8         reset_level[0x8];
>> + };
>> + 
>>   struct mlx5_ifc_mirc_reg_bits {
>>   	u8         reserved_at_0[0x18];
>>   	u8         status_code[0x8];
> 
> This is now a conflict between the net-next and kspp-gustavo trees.
> 

Thanks for reporting this. I think the best solution, for now, is to remove the
changes from my tree. I'll do it right away.

Thanks
--
Gustavo