Hi all,

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

  net/ipv4/udp.c

between commit:

  d894ba18d4e4 ("soreuseport: fix ordering for mixed v4/v6 sockets")

from the net tree and commit:

  ca065d0cf80f ("udp: no longer use SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU")

from the net-next tree.

I tried to fixed it up (see below).  Unfortunately,
hlist_add_tail_rcu() does not exist.  So instead I have reverted commit
d894ba18d4e4 ("soreuseport: fix ordering for mixed v4/v6 sockets") for
today.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc net/ipv4/udp.c
index a2e7f55a1f61,f1863136d3e4..000000000000
--- a/net/ipv4/udp.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c
@@@ -339,13 -336,8 +336,13 @@@ found
  
                hslot2 = udp_hashslot2(udptable, udp_sk(sk)->udp_portaddr_hash);
                spin_lock(&hslot2->lock);
 -              hlist_add_head_rcu(&udp_sk(sk)->udp_portaddr_node,
 -                                       &hslot2->head);
 +              if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6) && sk->sk_reuseport &&
 +                      sk->sk_family == AF_INET6)
-                       hlist_nulls_add_tail_rcu(&udp_sk(sk)->udp_portaddr_node,
-                                                &hslot2->head);
++                      hlist_add_tail_rcu(&udp_sk(sk)->udp_portaddr_node,
++                                         &hslot2->head);
 +              else
-                       hlist_nulls_add_head_rcu(&udp_sk(sk)->udp_portaddr_node,
-                                                &hslot2->head);
++                      hlist_add_head_rcu(&udp_sk(sk)->udp_portaddr_node,
++                                         &hslot2->head);
                hslot2->count++;
                spin_unlock(&hslot2->lock);
        }

Reply via email to