Hi all,
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:55:47 +0000 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 6aa7de059173a ("locking/atomics: COCCINELLE/treewide: Convert trivial ACCESS_ONCE() patterns to READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE()")
>
> in the tip tree and some change in 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.
>
> diff --cc net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> index a69a34f57330,48531da1aba6..000000000000
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> @@@ -1978,7 -1908,7 +1978,7 @@@ static bool tcp_tso_should_defer(struc
> if ((skb != tcp_write_queue_tail(sk)) && (limit >= skb->len))
> goto send_now;
>
> - win_divisor = ACCESS_ONCE(sock_net(sk)->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_tso_win_divisor);
> - win_divisor = READ_ONCE(sysctl_tcp_tso_win_divisor);
> ++ win_divisor = READ_ONCE(sock_net(sk)->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_tso_win_divisor);
> if (win_divisor) {
> u32 chunk = min(tp->snd_wnd, tp->snd_cwnd * tp->mss_cache);
>
Just a reminder that this conflict still exists.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
--
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
