| Message ID | 20230525110037.2b532b83@canb.auug.org.au (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Not a local patch |
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:00:37AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: > > net/ipv4/raw.c > > between commit: > > 3632679d9e4f ("ipv{4,6}/raw: fix output xfrm lookup wrt protocol") > > from the net tree and commit: > > c85be08fc4fa ("raw: Stop using RTO_ONLINK.") > > from 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. > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell > > diff --cc net/ipv4/raw.c > index eadf1c9ef7e4,8b7b5c842bdd..000000000000 > --- a/net/ipv4/raw.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/raw.c > @@@ -600,9 -596,8 +599,8 @@@ static int raw_sendmsg(struct sock *sk > } > } > > - flowi4_init_output(&fl4, ipc.oif, ipc.sockc.mark, tos, > - RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE, > + flowi4_init_output(&fl4, ipc.oif, ipc.sockc.mark, tos, scope, > - hdrincl ? IPPROTO_RAW : sk->sk_protocol, > + hdrincl ? ipc.protocol : sk->sk_protocol, > inet_sk_flowi_flags(sk) | > (hdrincl ? FLOWI_FLAG_KNOWN_NH : 0), > daddr, saddr, 0, 0, sk->sk_uid); Looks good. Thanks!
diff --cc net/ipv4/raw.c index eadf1c9ef7e4,8b7b5c842bdd..000000000000 --- a/net/ipv4/raw.c
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in: net/ipv4/raw.c between commit: 3632679d9e4f ("ipv{4,6}/raw: fix output xfrm lookup wrt protocol") from the net tree and commit: c85be08fc4fa ("raw: Stop using RTO_ONLINK.") from 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.