Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the sysctl tree got a conflict in
> net/ipv6/addrconf.c between commit
> f7734fdf61ec6bb848e0bafc1fb8bad2c124bb50 ("make TLLAO option for NA
> packets configurable") from the net tree and commit
> f8572d8f2a2ba75408b97dc24ef47c83671795d7 ("sysctl net: Remove unused
> binary sysctl code") from the sysctl tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) including removing the new ctl_name (thanks for
> the heads up, Eric). I can carry this fixup as necessary.
Would it be of any value for me to send David a change killing ctl_name
for the new entry? That is equivalent to .ctl_name = CTL_UNNUMBERED and
would make this a trivial conflict.
Fundamentally the conflict detection will always kick in here because
as I am modifying previous and succeeding entries in the table so the
context will always be different.
I'm still getting a hang of running a public git tree.
Eric
> diff --cc net/ipv6/addrconf.c
> index 522bdc7,f918399..0000000
> --- a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
> @@@ -4388,15 -4285,7 +4320,14 @@@ static struct addrconf_sysctl_tabl
> .proc_handler = proc_dointvec,
> },
> {
> - .ctl_name = CTL_UNNUMBERED,
> + .procname = "force_tllao",
> + .data = &ipv6_devconf.force_tllao,
> + .maxlen = sizeof(int),
> + .mode = 0644,
> + .proc_handler = proc_dointvec
> + },
> + {
> - .ctl_name = 0, /* sentinel */
> + /* sentinel */
> }
> },
> };
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
