* linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the orangefs tree
@ 2019-05-03 1:15 Stephen Rothwell
2019-05-03 17:34 ` Mike Marshall
2019-05-08 1:02 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2019-05-03 1:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Al Viro, Mike Marshall
Cc: Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Martin Brandenburg
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2577 bytes --]
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
fs/orangefs/super.c
between commit:
77becb76042a ("orangefs: implement xattr cache")
from the orangefs tree and commit:
f276ae0dd6d0 ("orangefs: make use of ->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/orangefs/super.c
index 8fa30c13b7ed,3784f7e8b603..000000000000
--- a/fs/orangefs/super.c
+++ b/fs/orangefs/super.c
@@@ -125,20 -124,9 +125,19 @@@ static struct inode *orangefs_alloc_ino
return &orangefs_inode->vfs_inode;
}
- static void orangefs_i_callback(struct rcu_head *head)
+ static void orangefs_free_inode(struct inode *inode)
{
- struct inode *inode = container_of(head, struct inode, i_rcu);
- kmem_cache_free(orangefs_inode_cache, ORANGEFS_I(inode));
+ struct orangefs_inode_s *orangefs_inode = ORANGEFS_I(inode);
+ struct orangefs_cached_xattr *cx;
+ struct hlist_node *tmp;
+ int i;
+
+ hash_for_each_safe(orangefs_inode->xattr_cache, i, tmp, cx, node) {
+ hlist_del(&cx->node);
+ kfree(cx);
+ }
+
+ kmem_cache_free(orangefs_inode_cache, orangefs_inode);
}
static void orangefs_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
@@@ -148,17 -136,8 +147,15 @@@
gossip_debug(GOSSIP_SUPER_DEBUG,
"%s: deallocated %p destroying inode %pU\n",
__func__, orangefs_inode, get_khandle_from_ino(inode));
-
- call_rcu(&inode->i_rcu, orangefs_i_callback);
}
+static int orangefs_write_inode(struct inode *inode,
+ struct writeback_control *wbc)
+{
+ gossip_debug(GOSSIP_SUPER_DEBUG, "orangefs_write_inode\n");
+ return orangefs_inode_setattr(inode);
+}
+
/*
* NOTE: information filled in here is typically reflected in the
* output of the system command 'df'
@@@ -316,8 -295,8 +313,9 @@@ void fsid_key_table_finalize(void
static const struct super_operations orangefs_s_ops = {
.alloc_inode = orangefs_alloc_inode,
+ .free_inode = orangefs_free_inode,
.destroy_inode = orangefs_destroy_inode,
+ .write_inode = orangefs_write_inode,
.drop_inode = generic_delete_inode,
.statfs = orangefs_statfs,
.remount_fs = orangefs_remount_fs,
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the orangefs tree
2019-05-03 1:15 linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the orangefs tree Stephen Rothwell
@ 2019-05-03 17:34 ` Mike Marshall
2019-05-03 22:26 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-05-08 1:02 ` Stephen Rothwell
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Mike Marshall @ 2019-05-03 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell
Cc: Al Viro, Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Martin Brandenburg
Hi Stephen...
I noticed the conflict too when I added Al's patch series to the orangefs
tree we have on next. I understood Linus to say he'd fix the conflict the
way you did during the merge window. I guess that means you'll have to
keep fixing it on next until then... I hate causing trouble, let me know if
there's something different I should do to help...
-Mike
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 9:15 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/orangefs/super.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 77becb76042a ("orangefs: implement xattr cache")
>
> from the orangefs tree and commit:
>
> f276ae0dd6d0 ("orangefs: make use of ->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/orangefs/super.c
> index 8fa30c13b7ed,3784f7e8b603..000000000000
> --- a/fs/orangefs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/orangefs/super.c
> @@@ -125,20 -124,9 +125,19 @@@ static struct inode *orangefs_alloc_ino
> return &orangefs_inode->vfs_inode;
> }
>
> - static void orangefs_i_callback(struct rcu_head *head)
> + static void orangefs_free_inode(struct inode *inode)
> {
> - struct inode *inode = container_of(head, struct inode, i_rcu);
> - kmem_cache_free(orangefs_inode_cache, ORANGEFS_I(inode));
> + struct orangefs_inode_s *orangefs_inode = ORANGEFS_I(inode);
> + struct orangefs_cached_xattr *cx;
> + struct hlist_node *tmp;
> + int i;
> +
> + hash_for_each_safe(orangefs_inode->xattr_cache, i, tmp, cx, node) {
> + hlist_del(&cx->node);
> + kfree(cx);
> + }
> +
> + kmem_cache_free(orangefs_inode_cache, orangefs_inode);
> }
>
> static void orangefs_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
> @@@ -148,17 -136,8 +147,15 @@@
> gossip_debug(GOSSIP_SUPER_DEBUG,
> "%s: deallocated %p destroying inode %pU\n",
> __func__, orangefs_inode, get_khandle_from_ino(inode));
> -
> - call_rcu(&inode->i_rcu, orangefs_i_callback);
> }
>
> +static int orangefs_write_inode(struct inode *inode,
> + struct writeback_control *wbc)
> +{
> + gossip_debug(GOSSIP_SUPER_DEBUG, "orangefs_write_inode\n");
> + return orangefs_inode_setattr(inode);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * NOTE: information filled in here is typically reflected in the
> * output of the system command 'df'
> @@@ -316,8 -295,8 +313,9 @@@ void fsid_key_table_finalize(void
>
> static const struct super_operations orangefs_s_ops = {
> .alloc_inode = orangefs_alloc_inode,
> + .free_inode = orangefs_free_inode,
> .destroy_inode = orangefs_destroy_inode,
> + .write_inode = orangefs_write_inode,
> .drop_inode = generic_delete_inode,
> .statfs = orangefs_statfs,
> .remount_fs = orangefs_remount_fs,
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the orangefs tree
2019-05-03 17:34 ` Mike Marshall
@ 2019-05-03 22:26 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2019-05-03 22:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Marshall
Cc: Al Viro, Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Martin Brandenburg
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 639 bytes --]
Hi Mike,
On Fri, 3 May 2019 13:34:49 -0400 Mike Marshall <hubcap@omnibond•com> wrote:
>
> I noticed the conflict too when I added Al's patch series to the orangefs
> tree we have on next. I understood Linus to say he'd fix the conflict the
> way you did during the merge window. I guess that means you'll have to
> keep fixing it on next until then... I hate causing trouble, let me know if
> there's something different I should do to help...
Its all good. I use "git rerere" which remembers the conflicts I have
fixed once and fixes them automatically the next time I do the same
merge.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the orangefs tree
2019-05-03 1:15 linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the orangefs tree Stephen Rothwell
2019-05-03 17:34 ` Mike Marshall
@ 2019-05-08 1:02 ` Stephen Rothwell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2019-05-08 1:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Al Viro, Mike Marshall
Cc: Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Martin Brandenburg
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2925 bytes --]
Hi all,
On Fri, 3 May 2019 11:15:10 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/orangefs/super.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 77becb76042a ("orangefs: implement xattr cache")
>
> from the orangefs tree and commit:
>
> f276ae0dd6d0 ("orangefs: make use of ->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/orangefs/super.c
> index 8fa30c13b7ed,3784f7e8b603..000000000000
> --- a/fs/orangefs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/orangefs/super.c
> @@@ -125,20 -124,9 +125,19 @@@ static struct inode *orangefs_alloc_ino
> return &orangefs_inode->vfs_inode;
> }
>
> - static void orangefs_i_callback(struct rcu_head *head)
> + static void orangefs_free_inode(struct inode *inode)
> {
> - struct inode *inode = container_of(head, struct inode, i_rcu);
> - kmem_cache_free(orangefs_inode_cache, ORANGEFS_I(inode));
> + struct orangefs_inode_s *orangefs_inode = ORANGEFS_I(inode);
> + struct orangefs_cached_xattr *cx;
> + struct hlist_node *tmp;
> + int i;
> +
> + hash_for_each_safe(orangefs_inode->xattr_cache, i, tmp, cx, node) {
> + hlist_del(&cx->node);
> + kfree(cx);
> + }
> +
> + kmem_cache_free(orangefs_inode_cache, orangefs_inode);
> }
>
> static void orangefs_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
> @@@ -148,17 -136,8 +147,15 @@@
> gossip_debug(GOSSIP_SUPER_DEBUG,
> "%s: deallocated %p destroying inode %pU\n",
> __func__, orangefs_inode, get_khandle_from_ino(inode));
> -
> - call_rcu(&inode->i_rcu, orangefs_i_callback);
> }
>
> +static int orangefs_write_inode(struct inode *inode,
> + struct writeback_control *wbc)
> +{
> + gossip_debug(GOSSIP_SUPER_DEBUG, "orangefs_write_inode\n");
> + return orangefs_inode_setattr(inode);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * NOTE: information filled in here is typically reflected in the
> * output of the system command 'df'
> @@@ -316,8 -295,8 +313,9 @@@ void fsid_key_table_finalize(void
>
> static const struct super_operations orangefs_s_ops = {
> .alloc_inode = orangefs_alloc_inode,
> + .free_inode = orangefs_free_inode,
> .destroy_inode = orangefs_destroy_inode,
> + .write_inode = orangefs_write_inode,
> .drop_inode = generic_delete_inode,
> .statfs = orangefs_statfs,
> .remount_fs = orangefs_remount_fs,
This is now a conflict between the orangefs tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-05-08 1:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-05-03 1:15 linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the orangefs tree Stephen Rothwell
2019-05-03 17:34 ` Mike Marshall
2019-05-03 22:26 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-05-08 1:02 ` Stephen Rothwell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox