linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20241119091639.2216ae57@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 09:16:39 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
 Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
 <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs
 tree

Hi all,

On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:51:29 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/btrfs/file.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   377781e9e6f8 ("btrfs: drop unused parameter iov_iter from btrfs_write_check()")
> 
> from the btrfs tree and commit:
> 
>   e2e801d6e625 ("btrfs: convert to multigrain timestamps")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc fs/btrfs/file.c
> index 033f85ea8c9d,e5384ceb8acf..000000000000
> --- a/fs/btrfs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c
> @@@ -1124,27 -1120,7 +1124,7 @@@ void btrfs_check_nocow_unlock(struct bt
>   	btrfs_drew_write_unlock(&inode->root->snapshot_lock);
>   }
>   
> - static void update_time_for_write(struct inode *inode)
> - {
> - 	struct timespec64 now, ts;
> - 
> - 	if (IS_NOCMTIME(inode))
> - 		return;
> - 
> - 	now = current_time(inode);
> - 	ts = inode_get_mtime(inode);
> - 	if (!timespec64_equal(&ts, &now))
> - 		inode_set_mtime_to_ts(inode, now);
> - 
> - 	ts = inode_get_ctime(inode);
> - 	if (!timespec64_equal(&ts, &now))
> - 		inode_set_ctime_to_ts(inode, now);
> - 
> - 	if (IS_I_VERSION(inode))
> - 		inode_inc_iversion(inode);
> - }
> - 
>  -int btrfs_write_check(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from, size_t count)
>  +int btrfs_write_check(struct kiocb *iocb, size_t count)
>   {
>   	struct file *file = iocb->ki_filp;
>   	struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);

This is now a conflict between the btrfs tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped