From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 02:08:39 +0100 Message-ID: <20160502010838.GJ25498@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20160502105943.72202e80@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:39602 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752151AbcEBBIl (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 May 2016 21:08:41 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160502105943.72202e80@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Miklos Szeredi , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:59:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Al, > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/overlayfs/super.c > > between commit: > > d478d6a8b8b7 ("ovl: ignore permissions on underlying lookup") > > from the overlayfs tree and commit: > > 5cf3e7fecb43 ("ovl_lookup_real(): use lookup_one_len_unlocked()") > > from the vfs tree. > > I fixed it up (I used the overlayfs version, since I don't know the > locking consequences of teh change from lookup_one_len() to lookup_hash()) > 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. Should use lookup_one_len_unlocked(), actually. lookup_hash() is a microoptimization, losing a lot more on excessive i_mutex contention. Either variant works, though.