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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists