Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/tc_flower.sh
between commit:
d2126838050c ("flow_dissector: fix TTL and TOS dissection on IPv4 fragments")
from the net tree and commits:
203ee5cd7235 ("selftests: tc: Add basic mpls_* matching support for tc-flower")
c09bfd9a5df9 ("selftests: tc: Add generic mpls matching support for tc-flower")
from 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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/tc_flower.sh
index b11d8e6b5bc1,a554838666c4..000000000000
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/tc_flower.sh
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/tc_flower.sh
@@@ -3,7 -3,9 +3,9 @@@
ALL_TESTS="match_dst_mac_test match_src_mac_test match_dst_ip_test \
match_src_ip_test match_ip_flags_test match_pcp_test match_vlan_test \
- match_ip_tos_test match_indev_test match_ip_ttl_test"
+ match_ip_tos_test match_indev_test match_mpls_label_test \
+ match_mpls_tc_test match_mpls_bos_test match_mpls_ttl_test \
- match_mpls_lse_test"
++ match_mpls_lse_test match_ip_ttl_test"
NUM_NETIFS=2
source tc_common.sh
source lib.sh
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:43:54AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/tc_flower.sh
>
> between commit:
>
> d2126838050c ("flow_dissector: fix TTL and TOS dissection on IPv4 fragments")
>
> from the net tree and commits:
>
> 203ee5cd7235 ("selftests: tc: Add basic mpls_* matching support for tc-flower")
> c09bfd9a5df9 ("selftests: tc: Add generic mpls matching support for tc-flower")
>
> from 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/tc_flower.sh
> index b11d8e6b5bc1,a554838666c4..000000000000
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/tc_flower.sh
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/tc_flower.sh
> @@@ -3,7 -3,9 +3,9 @@@
>
> ALL_TESTS="match_dst_mac_test match_src_mac_test match_dst_ip_test \
> match_src_ip_test match_ip_flags_test match_pcp_test match_vlan_test \
> - match_ip_tos_test match_indev_test match_ip_ttl_test"
> + match_ip_tos_test match_indev_test match_mpls_label_test \
> + match_mpls_tc_test match_mpls_bos_test match_mpls_ttl_test \
> - match_mpls_lse_test"
> ++ match_mpls_lse_test match_ip_ttl_test"
That's technically right. But I think it'd be nicer to have
"match_ip_ttl_test" appear between "match_ip_tos_test" and
"match_indev_test", rather than at the end of the list.
Before these commits, ALL_TESTS listed the tests in the order they were
implemented in the rest of the file. So I'd rather continue following
this implicit rule, if at all possible. Also it makes sense to keep
grouping all match_ip_*_test together.
> NUM_NETIFS=2
> source tc_common.sh
> source lib.sh
On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 12:01 +0100, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> Before these commits, ALL_TESTS listed the tests in the order they were
> implemented in the rest of the file. So I'd rather continue following
> this implicit rule, if at all possible. Also it makes sense to keep
> grouping all match_ip_*_test together.
yes, it makes sense. I can follow-up with a commit for net-next (when
tree re-opens), where the "ordering" in ALL_TESTS is restored. Ok?
thanks,
--
davide
Hi Davide,
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:35:37 +0100 Davide Caratti <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 12:01 +0100, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> > Before these commits, ALL_TESTS listed the tests in the order they were
> > implemented in the rest of the file. So I'd rather continue following
> > this implicit rule, if at all possible. Also it makes sense to keep
> > grouping all match_ip_*_test together.
>
> yes, it makes sense. I can follow-up with a commit for net-next (when
> tree re-opens), where the "ordering" in ALL_TESTS is restored. Ok?
The ordering is not set in stone yet (I have only done the merge in the
linux-next tree), just make sure that Dave knows what it should look
like when he merges the net and net-next trees.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell