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

[Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>]

David,
This cifs fscache fix should be upstream soon, so you should be able
to update the fscache series ontop of updated kernel soon

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 6:43 AM <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> 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")
>
> from the cifs 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/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);



-- 
Thanks,

Steve