On 11/10/2017 10:38 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/10/2017 10:33 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:27:24AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> That makes for a bit of an awkward merge, why wasn't this fixed up
>>> in your tree?
>>
>> Because you asked me to always base on for-4.15/block last time?
>
> That's not what I meant. It's conflicting because of a patch, that's
> fine. But the code in your tree is:
>
> if (a == &dev_attr_uuid.attr) {
> if (uuid_is_null(&ids->uuid) ||
> !memchr_inv(ids->nguid, 0, sizeof(ids->nguid)))
> return 0;
> }
>
> and you're saying the right resolution is:
>
> if (a == &dev_attr_uuid.attr) {
> if (uuid_is_null(&ids->uuid) ||
> !memchr_inv(ids->nguid, 0, sizeof(ids->nguid)))
> return 0;
> }
This one should have had the && instead of course...
--
Jens Axboe
