On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 05:35:36PM -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:27:44PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Sage,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the ceph tree got a conflict in
> > > fs/ceph/super.c between commit 3c5184ef1216 ("ceph: d_alloc_root() may
> > > fail") from Linus' tree and commit 26d913cdd955 ("ceph: always initialize
> > > the dentry in open_root_dentry()") from the ceph tree.
> > >
> > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
> >
> > Ahem...
> >
> > > + root = d_obtain_alias(inode);
> > > + }
> > > + ceph_init_dentry(root);
> >
> > What will happen if dentry returned by d_obtain_alias() had already existed?
>
> ceph_init_dentry() bails out immediately if d_fsdata is non-NULL.
Right.
> BTW, should I let Linus resolve this, or merge his master back into my
> tree, or rebase onto his master?
My fault - I should've checked your tree for conflicts and feed that fix to
you since it turned out to have them. I thought for some reason that ceph
pull had already happened...
--
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
