On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:57:37AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in
> fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c between commit e8e9ad42c1f1 ("xfs: take i_mmap_lock
> on extent manipulation operations") from the xfs tree and commit
> 5dd3dc06371a ("VFS: normal filesystems (and lustre): d_inode()
> annotations") from the vfs tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> is required).
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> diff --cc fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> index 015d6a366b16,54b95232d946..000000000000
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> @@@ -953,13 -975,9 +953,13 @@@ xfs_vn_setattr
> uint iolock = XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL;
>
> xfs_ilock(ip, iolock);
> - error = xfs_break_layouts(dentry->d_inode, &iolock);
> + error = xfs_break_layouts(d_inode(dentry), &iolock);
> - if (!error)
> + if (!error) {
> + xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL);
> + iolock |= XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL;
> +
> error = xfs_setattr_size(ip, iattr);
> + }
> xfs_iunlock(ip, iolock);
> } else {
> error = xfs_setattr_nonsize(ip, iattr, 0);
Fix looks good. FWIW, I'm just about to commit a locking fix
which adds a parameter to xfs_break_layouts() so you might need to
rework this again tomorrow...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
