Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the fuse tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 09:53:23 +1000

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..000000000000
--- 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 &fi->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(&fi->write_files));
- 		WARN_ON(!list_empty(&fi->queued_writes));
- 	}
+ 
  	mutex_destroy(&fi->mutex);
  	kfree(fi->forget);
- 	call_rcu(&inode->i_rcu, fuse_i_callback);
+ 	kmem_cache_free(fuse_inode_cachep, fi);
  }
  
  static void fuse_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)