Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Dec 2021 10:46:10 +1100 | From | Stephen Rothwell <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with the fscache tree |
| |
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.
> 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 [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |