Hi all,
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:06:25 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the mlx5-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
>
> between commit:
>
> 3ba225b506a2 ("treewide: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member")
>
> from the kspp-gustavo tree and commit:
>
> d65dbedfd298 ("net/mlx5: Add support for COPY steering action")
>
> from the mlx5-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 include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
> index 8d30f18dcdee,fb243848132d..000000000000
> --- a/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
> @@@ -5743,7 -5771,7 +5771,7 @@@ struct mlx5_ifc_alloc_modify_header_con
> u8 reserved_at_68[0x10];
> u8 num_of_actions[0x8];
>
> - union mlx5_ifc_set_action_in_add_action_in_auto_bits actions[];
> - union mlx5_ifc_set_add_copy_action_in_auto_bits actions[0];
> ++ union mlx5_ifc_set_add_copy_action_in_auto_bits actions[];
> };
>
> struct mlx5_ifc_dealloc_modify_header_context_out_bits {
> @@@ -9677,9 -9705,32 +9705,32 @@@ struct mlx5_ifc_mcda_reg_bits
>
> u8 reserved_at_60[0x20];
>
> - u8 data[0][0x20];
> + u8 data[][0x20];
> };
>
> + enum {
> + MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_TYPE_FULL_CHIP = BIT(0),
> + MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_TYPE_NET_PORT_ALIVE = BIT(1),
> + };
> +
> + enum {
> + MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_LEVEL0 = BIT(0),
> + MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_LEVEL3 = BIT(3),
> + MLX5_MFRL_REG_RESET_LEVEL6 = BIT(6),
> + };
> +
> + struct mlx5_ifc_mfrl_reg_bits {
> + u8 reserved_at_0[0x20];
> +
> + u8 reserved_at_20[0x2];
> + u8 pci_sync_for_fw_update_start[0x1];
> + u8 pci_sync_for_fw_update_resp[0x2];
> + u8 rst_type_sel[0x3];
> + u8 reserved_at_28[0x8];
> + u8 reset_type[0x8];
> + u8 reset_level[0x8];
> + };
> +
> struct mlx5_ifc_mirc_reg_bits {
> u8 reserved_at_0[0x18];
> u8 status_code[0x8];
This is now a conflict between the net-next and kspp-gustavo trees.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpacrvSP6cXV.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
