Hi all,
On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:43:17 +0000 broonie@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> 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")
This is now commit
b774302e8856 ("cifs: ignore resource_id while getting fscache super cookie")
in Linus' tree.
> from the cifs tree.
>
> 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);
so this is now a conflict between the fscache tree and Linus's tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpAsWjFTM5Om.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
