Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with the fscache tree
From: Stephen Rothwell <hidden>
Date: 2021-12-19 23:46:16
Also in:
linux-cifs, lkml
Hi all, On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:43:17 +0000 broonie@kernel.org 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.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
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
Attachments
- (unnamed) [application/pgp-signature] 488 bytes