[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211220104610.5f074aec@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 10:46:10 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: broonie@...nel.org, Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@...rosoft.com>,
Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Subject: 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@...nel.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
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists