-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 5:16 AM
To: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: broonie@xxxxxxxxxx; Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx>; CIFS <linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Shyam Prasad <Shyam.Prasad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Steven French <Steven.French@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with the fscache tree
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
=================================
> so this is now a conflict between the fscache tree and Linus's tree.
Hi David and Steve,
I think one of these two branches need to be rebased. Can one of you please do it?
Regards,
Shyam
