Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the fuse tree
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 09:23:17AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Al, > > On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 16:30:04 +0100 Al Viro wrote: > > > > ... originals cheerfully dropped; will be gone in today's push to > > vfs.git#for-next. > > Not pushed out yet? Give me about fifteen minutes...
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the fuse tree
Hi Al, On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 16:30:04 +0100 Al Viro wrote: > > ... originals cheerfully dropped; will be gone in today's push to > vfs.git#for-next. Not pushed out yet? -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell pgpC6lmOgb0FJ.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the fuse tree
On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 05:10:27PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 11:00 AM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 5:01 AM Stephen Rothwell
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > fs/fuse/inode.c
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > > 1458e5e9f99a ("fuse: extract fuse_fill_super_common()")
> > >
> > > from the fuse tree and commit:
> > >
> > > 2ad9ab0f7429 ("vfs: Convert fuse to use the new mount API")
> > > 48ceb15f98c8 ("vfs: Move the subtype parameter into fuse")
> >
> > And the latter is b0rked anyway.
>
> Both, actually.
>
> Pushed fixed ones to fuse.git#for-next.
... originals cheerfully dropped; will be gone in today's push to
vfs.git#for-next.
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the fuse tree
On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 11:00 AM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 5:01 AM Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > fs/fuse/inode.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 1458e5e9f99a ("fuse: extract fuse_fill_super_common()")
> >
> > from the fuse tree and commit:
> >
> > 2ad9ab0f7429 ("vfs: Convert fuse to use the new mount API")
> > 48ceb15f98c8 ("vfs: Move the subtype parameter into fuse")
>
> And the latter is b0rked anyway.
Both, actually.
Pushed fixed ones to fuse.git#for-next.
Thanks,
Miklos
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the fuse tree
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 5:01 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/fuse/inode.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 1458e5e9f99a ("fuse: extract fuse_fill_super_common()")
>
> from the fuse tree and commit:
>
> 2ad9ab0f7429 ("vfs: Convert fuse to use the new mount API")
> 48ceb15f98c8 ("vfs: Move the subtype parameter into fuse")
And the latter is b0rked anyway.
Al, please drop these patches from the VFS queue, I'll take (and fix)
them through the fuse queue.
Thanks,
Miklos
linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the fuse tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
fs/fuse/inode.c
between commit:
1458e5e9f99a ("fuse: extract fuse_fill_super_common()")
from the fuse tree and commit:
2ad9ab0f7429 ("vfs: Convert fuse to use the new mount API")
48ceb15f98c8 ("vfs: Move the subtype parameter into fuse")
from the vfs tree.
This is too much to work out, so I have effectively reverted the 2 vfs
tree commits.
I fixed it up (see above) 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
pgpqULAcaMWqP.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the fuse tree
Hi all,
On Tue, 7 May 2019 09:53:23 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/fuse/inode.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 829f949b6e06 ("fuse: clean up fuse_alloc_inode")
>
> from the fuse tree and commit:
>
> 9baf28bbfea1 ("fuse: switch to ->free_inode()")
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc fs/fuse/inode.c
> index bc02bad1be7c,f485d09d14df..
> --- a/fs/fuse/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/inode.c
> @@@ -102,25 -104,16 +102,16 @@@ static struct inode *fuse_alloc_inode(s
> return NULL;
> }
>
> -return inode;
> +return >inode;
> }
>
> - static void fuse_i_callback(struct rcu_head *head)
> - {
> - struct inode *inode = container_of(head, struct inode, i_rcu);
> - kmem_cache_free(fuse_inode_cachep, get_fuse_inode(inode));
> - }
> -
> - static void fuse_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
> + static void fuse_free_inode(struct inode *inode)
> {
> struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(inode);
> - if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) && !is_bad_inode(inode)) {
> - WARN_ON(!list_empty(>write_files));
> - WARN_ON(!list_empty(>queued_writes));
> - }
> +
> mutex_destroy(>mutex);
> kfree(fi->forget);
> - call_rcu(>i_rcu, fuse_i_callback);
> + kmem_cache_free(fuse_inode_cachep, fi);
> }
>
> static void fuse_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
This is now a conflict between the fuse tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
pgpv6ecJO_5xe.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the fuse tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
fs/fuse/inode.c
between commit:
829f949b6e06 ("fuse: clean up fuse_alloc_inode")
from the fuse tree and commit:
9baf28bbfea1 ("fuse: switch to ->free_inode()")
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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc fs/fuse/inode.c
index bc02bad1be7c,f485d09d14df..
--- a/fs/fuse/inode.c
+++ b/fs/fuse/inode.c
@@@ -102,25 -104,16 +102,16 @@@ static struct inode *fuse_alloc_inode(s
return NULL;
}
- return inode;
+ return >inode;
}
- static void fuse_i_callback(struct rcu_head *head)
- {
- struct inode *inode = container_of(head, struct inode, i_rcu);
- kmem_cache_free(fuse_inode_cachep, get_fuse_inode(inode));
- }
-
- static void fuse_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
+ static void fuse_free_inode(struct inode *inode)
{
struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(inode);
- if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) && !is_bad_inode(inode)) {
- WARN_ON(!list_empty(>write_files));
- WARN_ON(!list_empty(>queued_writes));
- }
+
mutex_destroy(>mutex);
kfree(fi->forget);
- call_rcu(>i_rcu, fuse_i_callback);
+ kmem_cache_free(fuse_inode_cachep, fi);
}
static void fuse_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
pgppq0E_R2R4f.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
