2022-03-02 06:35:36

by Stephen Rothwell

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

---

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:

net/smc/af_smc.c

between commit:

4d08b7b57ece ("net/smc: Fix cleanup when register ULP fails")

from the net tree and commit:

462791bbfa35 ("net/smc: add sysctl interface for SMC")

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/smc/af_smc.c
index 284befa90967,6447607675fa..000000000000
--- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
+++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
@@@ -3087,14 -3287,20 +3293,22 @@@ static int __init smc_init(void
rc = tcp_register_ulp(&smc_ulp_ops);
if (rc) {
pr_err("%s: tcp_ulp_register fails with %d\n", __func__, rc);
- goto out_sock;
+ goto out_ib;
}

+ rc = smc_sysctl_init();
+ if (rc) {
+ pr_err("%s: sysctl_init fails with %d\n", __func__, rc);
+ goto out_ulp;
+ }
+
static_branch_enable(&tcp_have_smc);
return 0;

+ out_ulp:
+ tcp_unregister_ulp(&smc_ulp_ops);
+out_ib:
+ smc_ib_unregister_client();
out_sock:
sock_unregister(PF_SMC);
out_proto6:

---

Attachments:

(No filename) (499.00 B)
OpenPGP digital signature

2022-03-02 09:08:04

by Tony Lu

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

---

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 11:22:09AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> net/smc/af_smc.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 4d08b7b57ece ("net/smc: Fix cleanup when register ULP fails")
>
> from the net tree and commit:
>
> 462791bbfa35 ("net/smc: add sysctl interface for SMC")
>
> 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.
>

Thanks for solving these conflicts. This looks good to me.

Tony Lu