On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 11:41:18AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
>
> between commit:
>
> b1f1961080c4 ("nfsd: allow layout state to be admin-revoked.")
>
> from the nfsd tree and commit:
>
> 7b8001013d72 ("filelock: don't do security checks on nfsd setlease calls")
>
> from the vfs-brauner tree.
Christian, Jeff -
For the remaining duration of v6.9 development, should I rebase
nfsd-next on vfs-brauner ?
> 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> index b1e585c1d9a3,4c0d00bdfbb1..4f3072b5979a
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> @@@ -152,23 -152,6 +152,23 @@@ void nfsd4_setup_layout_type(struct svc
> #endif
> }
>
> +void nfsd4_close_layout(struct nfs4_layout_stateid *ls)
> +{
> + struct nfsd_file *fl;
> +
> + spin_lock(&ls->ls_stid.sc_file->fi_lock);
> + fl = ls->ls_file;
> + ls->ls_file = NULL;
> + spin_unlock(&ls->ls_stid.sc_file->fi_lock);
> +
> + if (fl) {
> + if (!nfsd4_layout_ops[ls->ls_layout_type]->disable_recalls)
> - vfs_setlease(fl->nf_file, F_UNLCK, NULL,
> - (void **)&ls);
> ++ kernel_setlease(fl->nf_file, F_UNLCK, NULL,
> ++ (void **)&ls);
> + nfsd_file_put(fl);
> + }
> +}
> +
> static void
> nfsd4_free_layout_stateid(struct nfs4_stid *stid)
> {
--
Chuck Lever
