Hi all,
On Tue, 7 May 2019 09:53:23 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/fuse/inode.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 829f949b6e06 ("fuse: clean up fuse_alloc_inode")
>
> from the fuse tree and commit:
>
> 9baf28bbfea1 ("fuse: switch to ->free_inode()")
>
> from the vfs 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/fuse/inode.c
> index bc02bad1be7c,f485d09d14df..000000000000
> --- a/fs/fuse/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/inode.c
> @@@ -102,25 -104,16 +102,16 @@@ static struct inode *fuse_alloc_inode(s
> return NULL;
> }
>
> - return inode;
> + return &fi->inode;
> }
>
> - static void fuse_i_callback(struct rcu_head *head)
> - {
> - struct inode *inode = container_of(head, struct inode, i_rcu);
> - kmem_cache_free(fuse_inode_cachep, get_fuse_inode(inode));
> - }
> -
> - static void fuse_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
> + static void fuse_free_inode(struct inode *inode)
> {
> struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(inode);
> - if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) && !is_bad_inode(inode)) {
> - WARN_ON(!list_empty(&fi->write_files));
> - WARN_ON(!list_empty(&fi->queued_writes));
> - }
> +
> mutex_destroy(&fi->mutex);
> kfree(fi->forget);
> - call_rcu(&inode->i_rcu, fuse_i_callback);
> + kmem_cache_free(fuse_inode_cachep, fi);
> }
>
> static void fuse_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
This is now a conflict between the fuse tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpMpbqNknaC1.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
