linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: updates for 4.6-rc1

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]

Message-ID: <20160321183414.GB3490@thunk.org>
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:34:14 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: updates for 4.6-rc1

Thanks Jan, for checking the merge.

I didn't realize the ext4 fixups were going in via the xfs tree.  I
didn't see any merge conflicts from the linux-next tree (or maybe I
missed it) so I had assumed it wasn't in Dave's xfs.git tree.  My plan
had been to deal with it after the prereq patch went in via the xfs
tree --- in fact I was thinking about checking to see if the xfs.git
tree had been merged so I could get the ext4 commit merged and sent to
Linus.

Sorry I lost track of things.  If I had known I would have indeed
manually merged in the branch, resolved the merge, and done a
regression test cycle before pushing to Linus.

						- Ted
						
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:16:28AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 21-03-16 13:05:05, Dave Chinner wrote:
> The resolution of conflict in fs/ext4/inode.c is fine except for one minor
> issue:
> 
> > diff --cc fs/ext4/inode.c
> > index b2e9576,2b98171..e5ba3b0
> > --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > @@@ -3289,10 -3161,10 +3289,10 @@@ out
> >   }
> >   #endif
> >   
> > - static void ext4_end_io_dio(struct kiocb *iocb, loff_t offset,
> > + static int ext4_end_io_dio(struct kiocb *iocb, loff_t offset,
> >   			    ssize_t size, void *private)
> >   {
> >  -        ext4_io_end_t *io_end = iocb->private;
> >  +        ext4_io_end_t *io_end = private;
> >   
> >   	/* if not async direct IO just return */
> >   	if (!io_end)
> > @@@ -3300,8 -3172,18 +3300,17 @@@
> >   
> >   	ext_debug("ext4_end_io_dio(): io_end 0x%p "
> >   		  "for inode %lu, iocb 0x%p, offset %llu, size %zd\n",
> >  - 		  iocb->private, io_end->inode->i_ino, iocb, offset,
> >  -		  size);
> >  +		  io_end, io_end->inode->i_ino, iocb, offset, size);
> >   
> > + 	iocb->private = NULL;
> 
> The line above should not exist in the result. It does no harm but is
> unnecessary.
> 
> 								Honza
> -- 
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
> SUSE Labs, CR