Hi Shyam,
On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 04:31:27 +0000 Shyam Prasad <Shyam.Prasad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> -----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?
Nothing needs t be done, the conflict is trivial.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpFArIQ_8nkq.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
