linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the nfsd tree

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the nfsd tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1556 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:

  fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c

between commit:

  b1f1961080c4 ("nfsd: allow layout state to be admin-revoked.")

from the nfsd tree and commit:

  7b8001013d72 ("filelock: don't do security checks on nfsd setlease calls")

from the vfs-brauner 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
index b1e585c1d9a3,4c0d00bdfbb1..4f3072b5979a
--- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
+++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
@@@ -152,23 -152,6 +152,23 @@@ void nfsd4_setup_layout_type(struct svc
  #endif
  }
  
 +void nfsd4_close_layout(struct nfs4_layout_stateid *ls)
 +{
 +	struct nfsd_file *fl;
 +
 +	spin_lock(&ls->ls_stid.sc_file->fi_lock);
 +	fl = ls->ls_file;
 +	ls->ls_file = NULL;
 +	spin_unlock(&ls->ls_stid.sc_file->fi_lock);
 +
 +	if (fl) {
 +		if (!nfsd4_layout_ops[ls->ls_layout_type]->disable_recalls)
- 			vfs_setlease(fl->nf_file, F_UNLCK, NULL,
- 				     (void **)&ls);
++			kernel_setlease(fl->nf_file, F_UNLCK, NULL,
++					(void **)&ls);
 +		nfsd_file_put(fl);
 +	}
 +}
 +
  static void
  nfsd4_free_layout_stateid(struct nfs4_stid *stid)
  {

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the nfsd tree

[Chuck Lever]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 11:41:18AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   b1f1961080c4 ("nfsd: allow layout state to be admin-revoked.")
> 
> from the nfsd tree and commit:
> 
>   7b8001013d72 ("filelock: don't do security checks on nfsd setlease calls")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner tree.

Christian, Jeff -

For the remaining duration of v6.9 development, should I rebase
nfsd-next on vfs-brauner ?


> 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.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> index b1e585c1d9a3,4c0d00bdfbb1..4f3072b5979a
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> @@@ -152,23 -152,6 +152,23 @@@ void nfsd4_setup_layout_type(struct svc
>   #endif
>   }
>   
>  +void nfsd4_close_layout(struct nfs4_layout_stateid *ls)
>  +{
>  +	struct nfsd_file *fl;
>  +
>  +	spin_lock(&ls->ls_stid.sc_file->fi_lock);
>  +	fl = ls->ls_file;
>  +	ls->ls_file = NULL;
>  +	spin_unlock(&ls->ls_stid.sc_file->fi_lock);
>  +
>  +	if (fl) {
>  +		if (!nfsd4_layout_ops[ls->ls_layout_type]->disable_recalls)
> - 			vfs_setlease(fl->nf_file, F_UNLCK, NULL,
> - 				     (void **)&ls);
> ++			kernel_setlease(fl->nf_file, F_UNLCK, NULL,
> ++					(void **)&ls);
>  +		nfsd_file_put(fl);
>  +	}
>  +}
>  +
>   static void
>   nfsd4_free_layout_stateid(struct nfs4_stid *stid)
>   {



-- 
Chuck Lever

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the nfsd tree

[Jeff Layton]

On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 09:40 -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 11:41:18AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   b1f1961080c4 ("nfsd: allow layout state to be admin-revoked.")
> > 
> > from the nfsd tree and commit:
> > 
> >   7b8001013d72 ("filelock: don't do security checks on nfsd setlease calls")
> > 
> > from the vfs-brauner tree.
> 
> Christian, Jeff -
> 
> For the remaining duration of v6.9 development, should I rebase
> nfsd-next on vfs-brauner ?
> 

IMO, no. The fixup is pretty small. A vfs_setlease call got moved in
your tree in one of Neil's patches, so the merge just needs to account
for that when we're doing s/vfs_setlease/kernel_setlease/ in that file.

> 
> > 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.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> > 
> > diff --cc fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> > index b1e585c1d9a3,4c0d00bdfbb1..4f3072b5979a
> > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> > @@@ -152,23 -152,6 +152,23 @@@ void nfsd4_setup_layout_type(struct svc
> >   #endif
> >   }
> >   
> >  +void nfsd4_close_layout(struct nfs4_layout_stateid *ls)
> >  +{
> >  +	struct nfsd_file *fl;
> >  +
> >  +	spin_lock(&ls->ls_stid.sc_file->fi_lock);
> >  +	fl = ls->ls_file;
> >  +	ls->ls_file = NULL;
> >  +	spin_unlock(&ls->ls_stid.sc_file->fi_lock);
> >  +
> >  +	if (fl) {
> >  +		if (!nfsd4_layout_ops[ls->ls_layout_type]->disable_recalls)
> > - 			vfs_setlease(fl->nf_file, F_UNLCK, NULL,
> > - 				     (void **)&ls);
> > ++			kernel_setlease(fl->nf_file, F_UNLCK, NULL,
> > ++					(void **)&ls);
> >  +		nfsd_file_put(fl);
> >  +	}
> >  +}
> >  +
> >   static void
> >   nfsd4_free_layout_stateid(struct nfs4_stid *stid)
> >   {
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the nfsd tree

[Christian Brauner]

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 09:56:14AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/nfsd/nfsfh.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   fed41678532c ("nfsd: don't provide pre/post-op attrs if fh_getattr fails")
> 
> from the nfsd tree and commit:
> 
>   1a6f4cbffdf5 ("nfsd: ensure we use ctime_peek to grab the inode->i_ctime")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the version from the nsfd tree - which
> removed the code modified by the latter) 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.

I'll drop Jeff's series from vfs.all since he's about to send a new
version anyway. Thanks!

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the nfsd tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 837 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:

  fs/nfsd/nfsfh.c

between commit:

  fed41678532c ("nfsd: don't provide pre/post-op attrs if fh_getattr fails")

from the nfsd tree and commit:

  1a6f4cbffdf5 ("nfsd: ensure we use ctime_peek to grab the inode->i_ctime")

from the vfs-brauner tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the version from the nsfd tree - which
removed the code modified by the latter) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]