| Message ID | 20211216124317.4143405-1-broonie@kernel.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with the fscache tree | expand |
David, This cifs fscache fix should be upstream soon, so you should be able to update the fscache series ontop of updated kernel soon On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 6:43 AM <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the cifs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/cifs/inode.c > > between commit: > > 830c476f5eb82 ("cifs: Support fscache indexing rewrite (untested)") > > from the fscache tree and commit: > > 68f87ec9c1ce3 ("cifs: ignore resource_id while getting fscache super cookie") > > from the cifs 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. > > diff --cc fs/cifs/inode.c > index dc2fe76450b96,279622e4eb1c2..0000000000000 > --- a/fs/cifs/inode.c > +++ b/fs/cifs/inode.c > @@@ -1372,20 -1370,6 +1367,7 @@@ iget_no_retry > iget_failed(inode); > inode = ERR_PTR(rc); > } > + > - if (!rc) { > - /* > - * The cookie is initialized from volume info returned above. > - * Inside cifs_fscache_get_super_cookie it checks > - * that we do not get super cookie twice. > - */ > - rc = cifs_fscache_get_super_cookie(tcon); > - if (rc < 0) { > - iget_failed(inode); > - inode = ERR_PTR(rc); > - } > - } > - > out: > kfree(path); > free_xid(xid);
Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote: > This cifs fscache fix should be upstream soon, so you should be able > to update the fscache series ontop of updated kernel soon Thanks. David
Hi all, On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:43:17 +0000 broonie@kernel.org wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the cifs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/cifs/inode.c > > between commit: > > 830c476f5eb82 ("cifs: Support fscache indexing rewrite (untested)") > > from the fscache tree and commit: > > 68f87ec9c1ce3 ("cifs: ignore resource_id while getting fscache super cookie") This is now commit b774302e8856 ("cifs: ignore resource_id while getting fscache super cookie") in Linus' tree. > from the cifs tree. > > diff --cc fs/cifs/inode.c > index dc2fe76450b96,279622e4eb1c2..0000000000000 > --- a/fs/cifs/inode.c > +++ b/fs/cifs/inode.c > @@@ -1372,20 -1370,6 +1367,7 @@@ iget_no_retry > iget_failed(inode); > inode = ERR_PTR(rc); > } > + > - if (!rc) { > - /* > - * The cookie is initialized from volume info returned above. > - * Inside cifs_fscache_get_super_cookie it checks > - * that we do not get super cookie twice. > - */ > - rc = cifs_fscache_get_super_cookie(tcon); > - if (rc < 0) { > - iget_failed(inode); > - inode = ERR_PTR(rc); > - } > - } > - > out: > kfree(path); > free_xid(xid); so this is now a conflict between the fscache tree and Linus's tree.
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 5:16 AM To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Cc: broonie@kernel.org; Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>; CIFS <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>; Shyam Prasad <Shyam.Prasad@microsoft.com>; Steven French <Steven.French@microsoft.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with the fscache tree Hi all, On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:43:17 +0000 broonie@kernel.org wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the cifs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/cifs/inode.c > > between commit: > > 830c476f5eb82 ("cifs: Support fscache indexing rewrite (untested)") > > from the fscache tree and commit: > > 68f87ec9c1ce3 ("cifs: ignore resource_id while getting fscache super cookie") This is now commit b774302e8856 ("cifs: ignore resource_id while getting fscache super cookie") in Linus' tree. > from the cifs tree. > > diff --cc fs/cifs/inode.c > index dc2fe76450b96,279622e4eb1c2..0000000000000 > --- a/fs/cifs/inode.c > +++ b/fs/cifs/inode.c > @@@ -1372,20 -1370,6 +1367,7 @@@ iget_no_retry > iget_failed(inode); > inode = ERR_PTR(rc); > } > + > - if (!rc) { > - /* > - * The cookie is initialized from volume info returned above. > - * Inside cifs_fscache_get_super_cookie it checks > - * that we do not get super cookie twice. > - */ > - rc = cifs_fscache_get_super_cookie(tcon); > - if (rc < 0) { > - iget_failed(inode); > - inode = ERR_PTR(rc); > - } > - } > - > out: > kfree(path); > free_xid(xid); so this is now a conflict between the fscache tree and Linus's tree.
Hi Shyam, On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 04:31:27 +0000 Shyam Prasad <Shyam.Prasad@microsoft.com> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 5:16 AM > To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> > Cc: broonie@kernel.org; Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>; CIFS <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>; Shyam Prasad <Shyam.Prasad@microsoft.com>; Steven French <Steven.French@microsoft.com> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with the fscache tree > > Hi all, > > On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:43:17 +0000 broonie@kernel.org wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the cifs tree got a conflict in: > > > > fs/cifs/inode.c > > > > between commit: > > > > 830c476f5eb82 ("cifs: Support fscache indexing rewrite (untested)") > > > > from the fscache tree and commit: > > > > 68f87ec9c1ce3 ("cifs: ignore resource_id while getting fscache super cookie") > > This is now commit > > b774302e8856 ("cifs: ignore resource_id while getting fscache super cookie") > > in Linus' tree. > > > from the cifs tree. > > > > diff --cc fs/cifs/inode.c > > index dc2fe76450b96,279622e4eb1c2..0000000000000 > > --- a/fs/cifs/inode.c > > +++ b/fs/cifs/inode.c > > @@@ -1372,20 -1370,6 +1367,7 @@@ iget_no_retry > > iget_failed(inode); > > inode = ERR_PTR(rc); > > } > > + > > - if (!rc) { > > - /* > > - * The cookie is initialized from volume info returned above. > > - * Inside cifs_fscache_get_super_cookie it checks > > - * that we do not get super cookie twice. > > - */ > > - rc = cifs_fscache_get_super_cookie(tcon); > > - if (rc < 0) { > > - iget_failed(inode); > > - inode = ERR_PTR(rc); > > - } > > - } > > - > > out: > > kfree(path); > > free_xid(xid); > > so this is now a conflict between the fscache tree and Linus's tree. > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell > > ================================= > > so this is now a conflict between the fscache tree and Linus's tree. > > Hi David and Steve, > > I think one of these two branches need to be rebased. Can one of you please do it? Nothing needs t be done, the conflict is trivial.
diff --cc fs/cifs/inode.c index dc2fe76450b96,279622e4eb1c2..0000000000000 --- a/fs/cifs/inode.c
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the cifs tree got a conflict in: fs/cifs/inode.c between commit: 830c476f5eb82 ("cifs: Support fscache indexing rewrite (untested)") from the fscache tree and commit: 68f87ec9c1ce3 ("cifs: ignore resource_id while getting fscache super cookie") from the cifs 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. +++ b/fs/cifs/inode.c @@@ -1372,20 -1370,6 +1367,7 @@@ iget_no_retry iget_failed(inode); inode = ERR_PTR(rc); } + - if (!rc) { - /* - * The cookie is initialized from volume info returned above. - * Inside cifs_fscache_get_super_cookie it checks - * that we do not get super cookie twice. - */ - rc = cifs_fscache_get_super_cookie(tcon); - if (rc < 0) { - iget_failed(inode); - inode = ERR_PTR(rc); - } - } - out: kfree(path); free_xid(xid);