[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subjectlinux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with the fscache tree
Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the cifs tree got a conflict in:


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")

from the cifs 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.

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
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);
- }
- }

 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-16 13:43    [W:0.079 / U:3.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site