Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with the fscache tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 10:46:10 +1100

Hi all,

On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:43:17 +0000 [email-masked] 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