Hi all, On Fri, 3 May 2019 11:09:51 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/ext4/super.c > fs/f2fs/super.c > > between commit: > > 2c58d548f570 ("fscrypt: cache decrypted symlink target in ->i_link") > > from the fscrypt tree and commits: > > 94053139d482 ("ext4: make use of ->free_inode()") > d01718a050d0 ("f2fs: 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. > > Thanks, Al, for the heads up and example merge. > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell > > diff --cc fs/ext4/super.c > index 489cdeeab789,981f702848e7..000000000000 > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c > @@@ -1111,12 -1107,8 +1111,9 @@@ static int ext4_drop_inode(struct inod > return drop; > } > > - static void ext4_i_callback(struct rcu_head *head) > + static void ext4_free_in_core_inode(struct inode *inode) > { > - struct inode *inode = container_of(head, struct inode, i_rcu); > - > + fscrypt_free_inode(inode); > - > kmem_cache_free(ext4_inode_cachep, EXT4_I(inode)); > } > > diff --cc fs/f2fs/super.c > index f7605b3ff1f9,9924eac76254..000000000000 > --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c > +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c > @@@ -1000,12 -1000,8 +1000,9 @@@ static void f2fs_dirty_inode(struct ino > f2fs_inode_dirtied(inode, false); > } > > - static void f2fs_i_callback(struct rcu_head *head) > + static void f2fs_free_inode(struct inode *inode) > { > - struct inode *inode = container_of(head, struct inode, i_rcu); > - > + fscrypt_free_inode(inode); > - > kmem_cache_free(f2fs_inode_cachep, F2FS_I(inode)); > } > This is now a conflict between the fscrypt tree and Linus' tree. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell