From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the vfs tree Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:52:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20150313.005247.525984466584401105.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20150313131543.7c050492@canb.auug.org.au> <20150312.232426.1464986797003264151.davem@davemloft.net> <20150313035609.GO29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:44472 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750740AbbCMEwv (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:52:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150313035609.GO29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de, ying.xue@windriver.com, balbi@ti.com, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org From: Al Viro Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 03:56:09 +0000 > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:24:26PM -0400, David Miller wrote: >> From: Stephen Rothwell >> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:15:43 +1100 >> >> > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in >> > net/socket.c between commits 005139a14660 ("fs: remove ki_nbytes") and >> > e9eab93cc2dc ("fs: don't allow to complete sync iocbs through >> > aio_complete") from the vfs tree and commit 1b784140474e ("net: Remove >> > iocb argument from sendmsg and recvmsg") from the net-next tree. >> > >> > I fixed it up (mainly using the net-next version - see below) and can >> > carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). >> >> Al, how do you want to resolve this? > > Hmm... I could backmerge 1b784140474e4fc94281a49e96c67d29df0efbde into > vfs.git#for-next, of course, but you've got quite a pile of stuff in front > of it... FWIW, the conflict resolution proposed by Stephen is correct; > the question is what should go into which tree. > > Actually, prereqs of the commit in question on vfs.git side are mostly > -stable fodder; all it really needs is vfs.git#gadget and I was planning > to send that to Linus - fixes for leaks and use-after-free in gadgetfs > that had been there since forever, plus fixes for regression since 3.18 > (->f_op flipping that had always been fishy and outright broke when we > started to FMODE_CAN_READ/FMODE_CAN_WRITE). USB folks seem to be OK > with it. Christoph's patch isn't a regression fix, but seeing that it's > (a) trivial and (b) ends up causing merge headache... Maybe it would > make sense to pull it into mainline and resolve the conflict on backmerge > from mainline to net-next. Linus? I've pushed that (gadget + ki_nbytes) > into vfs.git#for-linus-2; would you be OK with pulling that? Push your stuff to Linus, then I'll solve all of this by merging Linus --> net --> net-next at some point, ok? Meanwhile Stephen's fix will carry us over until then. THanks!