From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: new code for 5.5
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 15:58:21 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191202235821.GF7335@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wi+0suvJAw8hxLkKJHgYwRy-0vg4-dw9_Co6nQHK-XF9Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:22:31PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 10:48 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > FYI, Stephen Rothwell reported a merge conflict with the y2038 tree at
> > the end of October[1]. His resolution looked pretty straightforward,
> > though the current y2038 for-next branch no longer changes fs/ioctl.c
> > (and the changes that were in it are not in upstream master), so that
> > may not be necessary.
>
> The changes and conflicts are definitely still there (now upstream),
> I'm not sure what made you not see them. But thanks for the note, I
> compared my end result with linux-next to verify.
Aha! I pulled master yesterday morning, tried a test merge with xfs,
saw the lack of merge conflicts, and sent you the xfs pull request. A
few hours later you pulled in the compat ioctl changes from Arnd's git
tree, but the branch in his repo that feeds the -next tree doesn't
contain the compat ioctl changes, so I assumed that meant he wasn't
going to send them for 5.5... and then thought better of myself and
attached an FYI anyway.
> My resolution is different from Stephen's. All my non-x86-64 FS_IOC_*
> cases just do "goto found_handler", because the compat case is
> identical for the native case outside of the special x86-64 alignment
> behavior, and I think that's what Arnd meant to happen.
Yeah, that looks correct to me. Stephen's solution backed out the
changes that Arnd made for the !x86_64 compat ioctl case, so I or
someone would have had to re-apply them.
> There was some other minor difference too, but it's also possible I
> could have messed up, so cc'ing Stephen and Arnd on this just in case
> they have comments.
<nod> Thanks for sorting this out.
--D
>
>
> Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-02 23:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-01 18:48 [GIT PULL] xfs: new code for 5.5 Darrick J. Wong
2019-12-02 23:20 ` pr-tracker-bot
2019-12-02 23:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-02 23:58 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2019-12-03 20:46 ` Arnd Bergmann
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=20191202235821.GF7335@magnolia \
--to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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