On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:13:25AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:47:34 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > fs/f2fs/namei.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 53edb549565f ("f2fs: fix to avoid dirent corruption")
> >
> > from the f2fs tree and commit:
> >
> > 7deee77b993a ("f2fs: Avoid reading renamed directory if parent does not change")
> >
> > 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.
>
> Then I remembered to look at your suggested resolution and redid it
> like you did (see below).
My suggested resolution had been wrong, actually - the way it's written,
link count drop should be conditional on old_is_dir, cross-directory or
not.
I think the right solution is
if (old_dir_entry)
f2fs_set_link(old_inode, old_dir_entry, old_dir_page, new_dir);
if (old_is_dir)
f2fs_i_links_write(old_dir, false);
