linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the logfs tree with Linus' tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:02:57 +1100
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
Cc:	Prasad Joshi <prasadjoshi.linux@...il.com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the logfs tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jörn,

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 20:00:46 +0100 Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 November 2011 14:10:00 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the logfs tree got a conflict in
> > fs/logfs/file.c between commit 02c24a82187d ("fs: push i_mutex and
> > filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers") from Linus' tree
> > and commit 39da12ef4bbe ("logfs: take write mutex lock during fsync and
> > sync") from the logfs tree.
> > 
> > I have no idea what needs to be done here.  I fixed it like below to make
> > it build, but a better fix is needed.
> 
> From a code perspective your fix below is correct, to the best of my
> judgement.  I'm less sure what to do from a git perspective.
> Explicitly tell Linus about it in the logfs pull request?

I was concered about the locking order (or if both locks were needed at
all).  And, yes, tell Linus.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped