[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wi+0suvJAw8hxLkKJHgYwRy-0vg4-dw9_Co6nQHK-XF9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 15:22:31 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: new code for 5.5
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 10:48 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> FYI, Stephen Rothwell reported a merge conflict with the y2038 tree at
> the end of October[1]. His resolution looked pretty straightforward,
> though the current y2038 for-next branch no longer changes fs/ioctl.c
> (and the changes that were in it are not in upstream master), so that
> may not be necessary.
The changes and conflicts are definitely still there (now upstream),
I'm not sure what made you not see them. But thanks for the note, I
compared my end result with linux-next to verify.
My resolution is different from Stephen's. All my non-x86-64 FS_IOC_*
cases just do "goto found_handler", because the compat case is
identical for the native case outside of the special x86-64 alignment
behavior, and I think that's what Arnd meant to happen.
There was some other minor difference too, but it's also possible I
could have messed up, so cc'ing Stephen and Arnd on this just in case
they have comments.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists