linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the wireless-drivers-next tree

linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the wireless-drivers-next tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1597 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/fw/api/tx.h

between commit:

  dc52fac37c87 ("iwlwifi: mvm: Support new TX_RSP and COMPRESSED_BA_RES versions")

from the wireless-drivers-next tree and commit:

  fa7845cfd53f ("treewide: Replace open-coded flex arrays in unions")

from the kspp 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/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/fw/api/tx.h
index 9b3bce83efb6,5fddfd391941..000000000000
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/fw/api/tx.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/fw/api/tx.h
@@@ -720,10 -715,11 +722,12 @@@ struct iwl_mvm_compressed_ba_notif 
  	__le32 tx_rate;
  	__le16 tfd_cnt;
  	__le16 ra_tid_cnt;
- 	struct iwl_mvm_compressed_ba_ratid ra_tid[0];
- 	struct iwl_mvm_compressed_ba_tfd tfd[];
+ 	union {
+ 		DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY(struct iwl_mvm_compressed_ba_ratid, ra_tid);
+ 		DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY(struct iwl_mvm_compressed_ba_tfd, tfd);
+ 	};
 -} __packed; /* COMPRESSED_BA_RES_API_S_VER_4 */
 +} __packed; /* COMPRESSED_BA_RES_API_S_VER_4,
 +	       COMPRESSED_BA_RES_API_S_VER_5 */
  
  /**
   * struct iwl_mac_beacon_cmd_v6 - beacon template command

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the wireless-drivers-next tree

[Kalle Valo]

(adding Jakub and Dave so that they are aware of this)

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:
>
>   drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/fw/api/tx.h
>
> between commit:
>
>   dc52fac37c87 ("iwlwifi: mvm: Support new TX_RSP and COMPRESSED_BA_RES versions")
>
> from the wireless-drivers-next tree and commit:
>
>   fa7845cfd53f ("treewide: Replace open-coded flex arrays in unions")
>
> from the kspp 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.

I don't know what kspp tree is and either I don't know why they didn't
submit the patch to wireless-drivers-next, so I assume they will handle
the conflict as well. But I really prefer that they would submit patches
to wireless-drivers-next instead to avoid unnecessary conflicts like
this.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the wireless-drivers-next tree

[Kees Cook]

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 11:40:42AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> (adding Jakub and Dave so that they are aware of this)
> 
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/fw/api/tx.h
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   dc52fac37c87 ("iwlwifi: mvm: Support new TX_RSP and COMPRESSED_BA_RES versions")
> >
> > from the wireless-drivers-next tree and commit:
> >
> >   fa7845cfd53f ("treewide: Replace open-coded flex arrays in unions")
> >
> > from the kspp 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.
> 
> I don't know what kspp tree is and either I don't know why they didn't
> submit the patch to wireless-drivers-next, so I assume they will handle
> the conflict as well. But I really prefer that they would submit patches
> to wireless-drivers-next instead to avoid unnecessary conflicts like
> this.

This was a treewide replacement with a dependent macro that was supposed
to be merged last cycle at rc1, but $shenanigans. Sorry for the conflict;
I'll make sure it is adjusted or called out for Linus when I send my
tree.

-- 
Kees Cook