> Today's linux-next merge of the infiniband tree got a conflict in
> drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c between commit
> ce916e2b935f8b3402da1457ff23b9f9f786c09b ("switch infiniband uverbs to
> anon_inodes") from the vfs tree and commit
> 4169c4a9735d6434c9e39fa81ae5517e3afd4cd8 ("IB/uverbs: Use anon_inodes
> instead of private infinibandeventfs") from the infiniband tree.
>
> These two commits purport to do something similar. Someone should look
> at them both and decide which one is right. For now I have used the
> version from the vfs tree - with the addition of the part from the
> infiniband tree version that selects ANON_INODES in the Kconfig file.
Huh, I didn't see that vfs commit and as far as I can tell it was never
posted anywhere. Which I guess is why we have linux-next :)
Anyway, both commits look essentially equivalent -- Al's moves the fd
allocation to callers, which is OK with me (a bit of duplicated code but
maybe a bit better layering of functions). I would like to see the
Kconfig part go in as part of the patch, although I guess it's not such
a terrible bit of breakage to fix up a bit after the fact. (Not a real
bisection killer)
Al, let me know what you want to do -- I can pick up your patch or drop
the patch from my tree, either way is fine.
- R.
--
Roland Dreier <rolandd@xxxxxxxxx>
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
