linux-next: manual merge of the ext3 tree with the cifs tree

linux-next: manual merge of the ext3 tree with the cifs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 509 bytes --]

Hi Jan,

Today's linux-next merge of the ext3 tree got a conflict in
fs/cifs/cifsfs.c between commit b6b38f704a8193daba520493ebdaf7e819962fc8
("[CIFS] Neaten cERROR and cFYI macros, reduce text space") from the cifs
tree and commit 31bb95a8175db36ed4772008a7e81014765bb782 ("cifs: drop
quota operation stubs") from the ext3 tree.

The latter removes some of the code that the former modifies.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ext3 tree with the cifs tree

[Eric Paris]

On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 20:04 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> I have just noticed that I get the same conflict between the cifs tree
> and the fsnotify tree (hi Eric!) which has also included that patch from
> Christoph.  Again, not a big problem.

I was doing my development against linux-next.  After I posted them and
decided to commit them to my -next tree I realized they didn't commit
due to hch's patch.  So I cherry picked hch's patch and decided I
wouldn't ask linus to pull until after the hch patch went in (I did it
for some things in the net-next tree as well as I recall)

What's the best way?  To handle this?  do you prefer to just carry the
conflict fix?  should we cherry pick things and fix it ourselves?  I
guess my method breaks down if the tree in question doesn't eventually
go to linus like it should.....

-Eric

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ext3 tree with the cifs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1289 bytes --]

Hi Jan,

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:50:06 +0100 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On Wed 25-11-09 14:06:26, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the ext3 tree got a conflict in fs/cifs/dir.c
> > between commit cea62343956c24452700c06cf028b72414c58a74 ("[CIFS]
> > Duplicate data on appending to some Samba servers") from the cifs tree
> > and commit 618903228b94b67a1d04634a83ea9cdb99c09e37 ("vfs: Implement
> > proper O_SYNC semantics") from the ext3 tree.
>   Thanks for notification and fixup.
> 
> > Just context changes.  I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as
> > necessary.
>   Looking at the code, I don't see an easy way of resolving this by changing
> either mine or CIFS tree - I have other patches depending on this and this
> patch depending on others and I assume it's similar with CIFS... So I guess
> we'll have to live with this conflict.

Its not a big issue and even if it hits Linus' tree that way, I think he
would not mind.

I have just noticed that I get the same conflict between the cifs tree
and the fsnotify tree (hi Eric!) which has also included that patch from
Christoph.  Again, not a big problem.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ext3 tree with the cifs tree

[Jan Kara]

  Hi,

On Wed 25-11-09 14:06:26, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the ext3 tree got a conflict in fs/cifs/dir.c
> between commit cea62343956c24452700c06cf028b72414c58a74 ("[CIFS]
> Duplicate data on appending to some Samba servers") from the cifs tree
> and commit 618903228b94b67a1d04634a83ea9cdb99c09e37 ("vfs: Implement
> proper O_SYNC semantics") from the ext3 tree.
  Thanks for notification and fixup.

> Just context changes.  I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as
> necessary.
  Looking at the code, I don't see an easy way of resolving this by changing
either mine or CIFS tree - I have other patches depending on this and this
patch depending on others and I assume it's similar with CIFS... So I guess
we'll have to live with this conflict.

								Honza


> diff --cc fs/cifs/dir.c
> index 1f42f77,f1fe5cb..0000000
> --- a/fs/cifs/dir.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/dir.c
> @@@ -214,7 -214,10 +214,8 @@@ int cifs_posix_open(char *full_path, st
>   		posix_flags |= SMB_O_EXCL;
>   	if (oflags & O_TRUNC)
>   		posix_flags |= SMB_O_TRUNC;
> - 	if (oflags & O_SYNC)
>  -	if (oflags & O_APPEND)
>  -		posix_flags |= SMB_O_APPEND;
> + 	/* be safe and imply O_SYNC for O_DSYNC */
> + 	if (oflags & O_DSYNC)
>   		posix_flags |= SMB_O_SYNC;
>   	if (oflags & O_DIRECTORY)
>   		posix_flags |= SMB_O_DIRECTORY;

linux-next: manual merge of the ext3 tree with the cifs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Jan,

Today's linux-next merge of the ext3 tree got a conflict in fs/cifs/dir.c
between commit cea62343956c24452700c06cf028b72414c58a74 ("[CIFS]
Duplicate data on appending to some Samba servers") from the cifs tree
and commit 618903228b94b67a1d04634a83ea9cdb99c09e37 ("vfs: Implement
proper O_SYNC semantics") from the ext3 tree.

Just context changes.  I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as
necessary.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc fs/cifs/dir.c
index 1f42f77,f1fe5cb..0000000
--- a/fs/cifs/dir.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/dir.c
@@@ -214,7 -214,10 +214,8 @@@ int cifs_posix_open(char *full_path, st
  		posix_flags |= SMB_O_EXCL;
  	if (oflags & O_TRUNC)
  		posix_flags |= SMB_O_TRUNC;
- 	if (oflags & O_SYNC)
 -	if (oflags & O_APPEND)
 -		posix_flags |= SMB_O_APPEND;
+ 	/* be safe and imply O_SYNC for O_DSYNC */
+ 	if (oflags & O_DSYNC)
  		posix_flags |= SMB_O_SYNC;
  	if (oflags & O_DIRECTORY)
  		posix_flags |= SMB_O_DIRECTORY;