David,
This cifs fscache fix should be upstream soon, so you should be able
to update the fscache series ontop of updated kernel soon
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 6:43 AM <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the cifs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/cifs/inode.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 830c476f5eb82 ("cifs: Support fscache indexing rewrite (untested)")
>
> from the fscache tree and commit:
>
> 68f87ec9c1ce3 ("cifs: ignore resource_id while getting fscache super cookie")
>
> from the cifs 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.
>
> diff --cc fs/cifs/inode.c
> index dc2fe76450b96,279622e4eb1c2..0000000000000
> --- a/fs/cifs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/inode.c
> @@@ -1372,20 -1370,6 +1367,7 @@@ iget_no_retry
> iget_failed(inode);
> inode = ERR_PTR(rc);
> }
> +
> - if (!rc) {
> - /*
> - * The cookie is initialized from volume info returned above.
> - * Inside cifs_fscache_get_super_cookie it checks
> - * that we do not get super cookie twice.
> - */
> - rc = cifs_fscache_get_super_cookie(tcon);
> - if (rc < 0) {
> - iget_failed(inode);
> - inode = ERR_PTR(rc);
> - }
> - }
> -
> out:
> kfree(path);
> free_xid(xid);
--
Thanks,
Steve
