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

Hi all,

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

  net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c

between commit:

  8fbfef7f505b ("ipvs: use IPVS_CMD_ATTR_MAX for family.maxattr")

from the netfilter tree and commit:

  489111e5c25b ("genetlink: statically initialize families")

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/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c
index a6e44ef2ec9a,6b85ded4f91d..000000000000

--- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c

@@@ -3872,10 -3865,20 +3865,20 @@@ static const struct genl_ops ip_vs_genl
  	},
  };
  
+ static struct genl_family ip_vs_genl_family __ro_after_init = {
+ 	.hdrsize	= 0,
+ 	.name		= IPVS_GENL_NAME,
+ 	.version	= IPVS_GENL_VERSION,
 -	.maxattr	= IPVS_CMD_MAX,
++	.maxattr	= IPVS_CMD_ATTR_MAX,
+ 	.netnsok        = true,         /* Make ipvsadm to work on netns */
+ 	.module		= THIS_MODULE,
+ 	.ops		= ip_vs_genl_ops,
+ 	.n_ops		= ARRAY_SIZE(ip_vs_genl_ops),
+ };
+ 
  static int __init ip_vs_genl_register(void)
  {
- 	return genl_register_family_with_ops(&ip_vs_genl_family,
- 					     ip_vs_genl_ops);
+ 	return genl_register_family(&ip_vs_genl_family);
  }
  
  static void ip_vs_genl_unregister(void)

Hi David,

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:56:33AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

Hi all,

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

  net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c

between commit:

  8fbfef7f505b ("ipvs: use IPVS_CMD_ATTR_MAX for family.maxattr")

from the netfilter tree and commit:

  489111e5c25b ("genetlink: statically initialize families")

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.

I think I cannot help to address this conflict myself.

8fbfef7f505b is in my nf tree, while 489111e5c25b is in net-next. So
you will hit this conflict by when you pull net into net-next.

So please keep this patch from Stephen to resolve the conflict in your
radar to solve this.

Or let me know if you come up with any way I can handle this from here
to reduce your burden. Thanks.

From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 01:31:17 +0100

I think I cannot help to address this conflict myself.

8fbfef7f505b is in my nf tree, while 489111e5c25b is in net-next. So
you will hit this conflict by when you pull net into net-next.

So please keep this patch from Stephen to resolve the conflict in your
radar to solve this.

I will, thank you.