linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the file-locks 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:   Wed, 28 Jun 2017 05:54:00 -0400
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the file-locks
 tree

On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 20:01 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 06/27/2017 07:57 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Jens,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   include/linux/fs.h
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   3f64df8a51ce ("fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting")
> > 
> > from the file-locks tree and commit:
> > 
> >   c75b1d9421f8 ("fs: add fcntl() interface for setting/getting write life time hints")
> > 
> > from the block tree.
> 
> Looks like we stole the same hole! Let's just merge it like this, then
> post merge I (or Jeff) can move the member to a better location.
> 

(cc'ing Al since he might pick these up...)

Indeed!

I'll plan to move f_wb_err to the end of the struct.

I have some later patches that add a second 32-bit errseq_t field to
struct file for tracking metadata writeback errors. That would make them
adjacent to one another which at least looks a little cleaner.

Cheers,
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>