Pull trivial helper to preempt fscache merge conflict?

Pull trivial helper to preempt fscache merge conflict?

[Christian Brauner]

Hey Linus,

Stephen informed David and me that there's a merge conflict in next between
David's fscache tree and my idmapping tree due to him deleting a file I'm
modifying. I talked to David yesterday and he asked me to check whether you
want to pull the commit that causes the merge conflict now.

Since the patch has extremely low regression potential I did agree to at
least ask you. But no problem if you'd rather fix it yourself during the
next merge window should you decide to pull.

(Technically David did just ask whether you'd pull the static inline
function itself to add back the bit that he deletes in a later patch but
that seems almost not worth it then so I decided to ask you about the whole
patch.)

This adds a simple helper to determine whether a mnt is idmapped and
replaces all current six instances that open-code this check now.

The patch has been in next for a few days now without build warnings or
regressions and fstests pass.

Christian

The following changes since commit d58071a8a76d779eedab38033ae4c821c30295a5:

  Linux 5.16-rc3 (2021-11-28 14:09:19 -0800)

are available in the Git repository at:

  git@gitolite.kernel.org:pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/linux tags/fs.idmapped.fixes.v5.16-rc5

for you to fetch changes up to bb49e9e730c2906a958eee273a7819f401543d6c:

  fs: add is_idmapped_mnt() helper (2021-12-03 18:44:06 +0100)

----------------------------------------------------------------
fs.idmapped.fixes.v5.16-rc5

----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Brauner (1):
      fs: add is_idmapped_mnt() helper

 fs/cachefiles/bind.c |  2 +-
 fs/ecryptfs/main.c   |  2 +-
 fs/namespace.c       |  2 +-
 fs/nfsd/export.c     |  2 +-
 fs/overlayfs/super.c |  2 +-
 fs/proc_namespace.c  |  2 +-
 include/linux/fs.h   | 14 ++++++++++++++
 7 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Re: Pull trivial helper to preempt fscache merge conflict?

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 6:25 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Since the patch has extremely low regression potential I did agree to at
> least ask you. But no problem if you'd rather fix it yourself during the
> next merge window should you decide to pull.

Honestly, looking at that pull, any conflict would seem to be so
trivial that I won't worry about it, and I'd rather deal with it
normally than taking the odd extra pull early.

                 Linus