Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
net/mptcp/protocol.c
between commit:
dc24f8b4ecd3 ("mptcp: add dummy icsk_sync_mss()")
from the net tree and commit:
80992017150b ("mptcp: add work queue skeleton")
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 net/mptcp/protocol.c
index 3c19a8efdcea,044295707bbf..000000000000
--- a/net/mptcp/protocol.c
+++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.c
@@@ -543,20 -666,26 +666,32 @@@ static void __mptcp_close_ssk(struct so
}
}
+static unsigned int mptcp_sync_mss(struct sock *sk, u32 pmtu)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
+ static void mptcp_worker(struct work_struct *work)
+ {
+ struct mptcp_sock *msk = container_of(work, struct mptcp_sock, work);
+ struct sock *sk = &msk->sk.icsk_inet.sk;
+
+ lock_sock(sk);
+ __mptcp_move_skbs(msk);
+ release_sock(sk);
+ sock_put(sk);
+ }
+
static int __mptcp_init_sock(struct sock *sk)
{
struct mptcp_sock *msk = mptcp_sk(sk);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&msk->conn_list);
__set_bit(MPTCP_SEND_SPACE, &msk->flags);
+ INIT_WORK(&msk->work, mptcp_worker);
msk->first = NULL;
+ inet_csk(sk)->icsk_sync_mss = mptcp_sync_mss;
return 0;
}
On Fri, 2020-02-28 at 10:24 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> net/mptcp/protocol.c
>
> between commit:
>
> dc24f8b4ecd3 ("mptcp: add dummy icsk_sync_mss()")
>
> from the net tree and commit:
>
> 80992017150b ("mptcp: add work queue skeleton")
>
> 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.
Thank you, the conflict resolution looks good to me.
I did not notice the conflict beforehands, sorry.
Cheers,
Paolo