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

From: Roland Dreier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:02:55 -0800

> Today's linux-next merge of the infiniband tree got a conflict in
 > drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c between commit
 > ce916e2b935f8b3402da1457ff23b9f9f786c09b ("switch infiniband uverbs to
 > anon_inodes") from the vfs tree and commit
 > 4169c4a9735d6434c9e39fa81ae5517e3afd4cd8 ("IB/uverbs: Use anon_inodes
 > instead of private infinibandeventfs") from the infiniband tree.
 > 
 > These two commits purport to do something similar.  Someone should look
 > at them both and decide which one is right.  For now I have used the
 > version from the vfs tree - with the addition of the part from the
 > infiniband tree version that selects ANON_INODES in the Kconfig file.

Huh, I didn't see that vfs commit and as far as I can tell it was never
posted anywhere.  Which I guess is why we have linux-next :)

Anyway, both commits look essentially equivalent -- Al's moves the fd
allocation to callers, which is OK with me (a bit of duplicated code but
maybe a bit better layering of functions).  I would like to see the
Kconfig part go in as part of the patch, although I guess it's not such
a terrible bit of breakage to fix up a bit after the fact.  (Not a real
bisection killer)

Al, let me know what you want to do -- I can pick up your patch or drop
the patch from my tree, either way is fine.

 - R.
-- 
Roland Dreier  <[email-masked]>
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to [email-masked]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html