Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the file-locks tree with the cel tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:13:38 +1000

Hi all,

On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:07:37 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the file-locks tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/nfs/file.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   c045f1c40a48 ("nfs: don't allow reexport reclaims")
> 
> from the cel tree and commit:
> 
>   f7e33bdbd6d1 ("fs: remove mandatory file locking support")
> 
> from the file-locks 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/nfs/file.c
> index 7411658f8b05,514be5d28d70..000000000000
> --- a/fs/nfs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/file.c
> @@@ -806,13 -806,6 +806,9 @@@ int nfs_lock(struct file *filp, int cmd
>   
>   	nfs_inc_stats(inode, NFSIOS_VFSLOCK);
>   
>  +	if (fl->fl_flags & FL_RECLAIM)
>  +		return -ENOGRACE;
>  +
> - 	/* No mandatory locks over NFS */
> - 	if (__mandatory_lock(inode) && fl->fl_type != F_UNLCK)
> - 		goto out_err;
> - 
>   	if (NFS_SERVER(inode)->flags & NFS_MOUNT_LOCAL_FCNTL)
>   		is_local = 1;
>   

This is now a conflict between the cel tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell