linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 02:08:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160502010838.GJ25498@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160502105943.72202e80@canb.auug.org.au>

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.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-05-02  1:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-02  0:59 linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree Stephen Rothwell
2016-05-02  1:08 ` Al Viro [this message]
2016-05-02  1:23   ` Al Viro
2016-05-02  8:30   ` Miklos Szeredi
2016-05-10 23:20 Stephen Rothwell
2016-07-25  0:24 Stephen Rothwell
2016-07-25  0:30 ` Al Viro
2016-07-25  8:09   ` Miklos Szeredi
2016-10-10  0:20 Stephen Rothwell
2016-12-11 23:08 Stephen Rothwell
2016-12-11 23:13 Stephen Rothwell
2017-11-08 23:18 Stephen Rothwell
2018-01-25  3:31 Stephen Rothwell
2018-01-25  3:39 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-01-31 23:25 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-05-29  1:30 Stephen Rothwell
2018-06-05  0:19 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-06-18  3:43 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-06-19  1:10 Stephen Rothwell
2018-06-19  1:21 Stephen Rothwell
2018-06-19  8:40 ` David Howells
2018-06-19 13:38   ` Miklos Szeredi
2018-07-10  0:17 Stephen Rothwell
2018-07-10 15:04 ` Al Viro
2018-07-11  2:11   ` Al Viro
2018-07-10  0:22 Stephen Rothwell
2021-04-12  2:03 Stephen Rothwell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160502010838.GJ25498@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).