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

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

[Matthieu Baerts]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1103 bytes --]

Hi Stephen,

On 21/09/2022 03:04, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/bonding/Makefile
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   bbb774d921e2 ("net: Add tests for bonding and team address list management")
> 
> from the net tree and commit:
> 
>   152e8ec77640 ("selftests/bonding: add a test for bonding lladdr target")
> 
> from the net-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
Thank you for sharing this fix (and all the others!).

I also had this conflict on my side[1] and I resolved it differently,
more like what is done in the -net tree I think, please see the patch
attached to this email.

I guess I should probably use your version. It is just I saw it after
having resolved the conflict on my side :)
I will check later how the network maintainers will resolve this
conflict and update my tree if needed.

Cheers,
Matt

[1] https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/commit/c02e0180887c
-- 
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net

[-- Attachment #2: c02e0180887cdb8c2bc98fcbb0ad6a6d7c68578c.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 561 bytes --]

diff --cc tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/bonding/Makefile
index 0f9659407969,d209f7a98b6c..1ed01e960d51
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/bonding/Makefile
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/bonding/Makefile
@@@ -1,9 -1,7 +1,10 @@@
  # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
  # Makefile for net selftests
  
 -TEST_PROGS := bond-break-lacpdu-tx.sh
 -TEST_PROGS += bond-lladdr-target.sh
 +TEST_PROGS := bond-break-lacpdu-tx.sh \
++	      bond-lladdr-target.sh \
 +	      dev_addr_lists.sh
 +
 +TEST_FILES := lag_lib.sh
  
  include ../../../lib.mk

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

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 11:18:17 +0200 Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On 21/09/2022 03:04, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/bonding/Makefile
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   bbb774d921e2 ("net: Add tests for bonding and team address list management")
> > 
> > from the net tree and commit:
> > 
> >   152e8ec77640 ("selftests/bonding: add a test for bonding lladdr target")
> > 
> > from the net-next tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.  
> Thank you for sharing this fix (and all the others!).
> 
> I also had this conflict on my side[1] and I resolved it differently,
> more like what is done in the -net tree I think, please see the patch
> attached to this email.
> 
> I guess I should probably use your version. It is just I saw it after
> having resolved the conflict on my side :)
> I will check later how the network maintainers will resolve this
> conflict and update my tree if needed.

I took this opportunity to sort 'em:

- TEST_PROGS := bond-break-lacpdu-tx.sh
- TEST_PROGS += bond-lladdr-target.sh
 -TEST_PROGS := bond-break-lacpdu-tx.sh \
 -            dev_addr_lists.sh \
 -            bond-arp-interval-causes-panic.sh
++TEST_PROGS := \
++      bond-arp-interval-causes-panic.sh \
++      bond-break-lacpdu-tx.sh \
++      dev_addr_lists.sh
+ 
+ TEST_FILES := lag_lib.sh

Here's to hoping there are no more bond selftests before final..

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

[Matthieu Baerts]

Hi Jakub,

On 22/09/2022 21:59, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 11:18:17 +0200 Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On 21/09/2022 03:04, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>>   tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/bonding/Makefile
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>>   bbb774d921e2 ("net: Add tests for bonding and team address list management")
>>>
>>> from the net tree and commit:
>>>
>>>   152e8ec77640 ("selftests/bonding: add a test for bonding lladdr target")
>>>
>>> from the net-next tree.
>>>
>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.  
>> Thank you for sharing this fix (and all the others!).
>>
>> I also had this conflict on my side[1] and I resolved it differently,
>> more like what is done in the -net tree I think, please see the patch
>> attached to this email.
>>
>> I guess I should probably use your version. It is just I saw it after
>> having resolved the conflict on my side :)
>> I will check later how the network maintainers will resolve this
>> conflict and update my tree if needed.
> 
> I took this opportunity to sort 'em:
> 
> - TEST_PROGS := bond-break-lacpdu-tx.sh
> - TEST_PROGS += bond-lladdr-target.sh
>  -TEST_PROGS := bond-break-lacpdu-tx.sh \
>  -            dev_addr_lists.sh \
>  -            bond-arp-interval-causes-panic.sh
> ++TEST_PROGS := \
> ++      bond-arp-interval-causes-panic.sh \
> ++      bond-break-lacpdu-tx.sh \
> ++      dev_addr_lists.sh
> + 
> + TEST_FILES := lag_lib.sh
> 
> Here's to hoping there are no more bond selftests before final..

Good idea to sort them!

It looks like you accidentally removed 'bond-lladdr-target.sh' from the
list. Most probably because there was yet another conflict in this file,
see commit 2ffd57327ff1 ("selftests: bonding: cause oops in
bond_rr_gen_slave_id") :)

Or maybe because you were again disappointed by Lewandowski's
performance yesterday when you were resolving the conflicts at the same
time :-D

Anyway I just sent a small patch to fix this:

https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220923082306.2468081-1-matthieu.baerts@tessares.net/T/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220923082306.2468081-1-matthieu.baerts@tessares.net/

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net

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

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 10:28:10 +0200 Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Or maybe because you were again disappointed by Lewandowski's
> performance yesterday when you were resolving the conflicts at the same
> time :-D

:D

> Anyway I just sent a small patch to fix this:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220923082306.2468081-1-matthieu.baerts@tessares.net/T/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220923082306.2468081-1-matthieu.baerts@tessares.net/

Thanks!