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

[Saeed Mahameed]

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got conflicts in:
>
>   drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/health.c
>   include/linux/mlx5/driver.h
>
> between commit:
>
>   2a0165a034ac ("net/mlx5: Cancel delayed recovery work when unloading the driver")
>
> from the net tree and commit:
>
>   0179720d6be2 ("Introduce new function for entering bad-health state.")
>
> 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 drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/health.c
> index 8a8b5f0e497c,0648a659b21d..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/health.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/health.c
> @@@ -193,8 -193,8 +194,8 @@@ static void health_care(struct work_str
>         mlx5_core_warn(dev, "handling bad device here\n");
>         mlx5_handle_bad_state(dev);
>
> -       spin_lock(&health->wq_lock);
> +       spin_lock_irqsave(&health->wq_lock, flags);
>  -      if (!test_bit(MLX5_DROP_NEW_HEALTH_WORK, &health->flags))
>  +      if (!test_bit(MLX5_DROP_NEW_RECOVERY_WORK, &health->flags))
>                 schedule_delayed_work(&health->recover_work, recover_delay);
>         else
>                 dev_err(&dev->pdev->dev,
> @@@ -334,11 -341,11 +343,12 @@@ void mlx5_stop_health_poll(struct mlx5_
>   void mlx5_drain_health_wq(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
>   {
>         struct mlx5_core_health *health = &dev->priv.health;
> +       unsigned long flags;
>
> -       spin_lock(&health->wq_lock);
> +       spin_lock_irqsave(&health->wq_lock, flags);
>         set_bit(MLX5_DROP_NEW_HEALTH_WORK, &health->flags);
>  +      set_bit(MLX5_DROP_NEW_RECOVERY_WORK, &health->flags);
> -       spin_unlock(&health->wq_lock);
> +       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&health->wq_lock, flags);
>         cancel_delayed_work_sync(&health->recover_work);
>         cancel_work_sync(&health->work);
>   }
> diff --cc include/linux/mlx5/driver.h
> index ba260330ce5e,2ab4ae3e3a1a..000000000000
> --- a/include/linux/mlx5/driver.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mlx5/driver.h
> @@@ -925,7 -945,7 +945,8 @@@ int mlx5_health_init(struct mlx5_core_d
>   void mlx5_start_health_poll(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev);
>   void mlx5_stop_health_poll(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev);
>   void mlx5_drain_health_wq(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev);
>  +void mlx5_drain_health_recovery(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev);
> + void mlx5_trigger_health_work(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev);
>   int mlx5_buf_alloc_node(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev, int size,
>                         struct mlx5_buf *buf, int node);
>   int mlx5_buf_alloc(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev, int size, struct mlx5_buf *buf);

Hi Stephen,

The fix up looks good, I already notified Dave about this on net
submission and he approved.

Thanks,
Saeed.