From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933048AbcCTB74 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 19 Mar 2016 21:59:56 -0400
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:44310 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932885AbcCTB7t (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 19 Mar 2016 21:59:49 -0400
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 01:59:47 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git
Message-ID: <20160320015947.GA17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20160320014422.GY17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFyO_HXDqo7Lh_OSUJJXWdQc4ccOFeky31r+QwUsyN1bDg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyO_HXDqo7Lh_OSUJJXWdQc4ccOFeky31r+QwUsyN1bDg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 06:55:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >         Preparations of parallel lookups (the remaining main obstacle is the
> > need to move security_d_instantiate(); once that becomes safe, the rest will
> > be a matter of rather short series local to fs/*.c) + preadv2/pwritev2 series
> > from Christoph + assorted fixes.
> 
> So this:
> 
> > Al Viro:
> >       replace d_add_unique() with saner primitive
> 
> ends up conflicting with commit d9dfd8d74168 ("NFSv4: Fix a dentry
> leak on alias use").
> 
> >From what I can tell, your version doesn't have the leak issue, so my
> merge resolution is to just take your new code as-is, but I'd ask you
> to double-check my logic.
> 
> (I haven't pushed out the merge yet, it's still going through my build
> test. Soon, but I guess you can just take a look at that dentry leak
> commit regardless).

It does contain an equivalent of the leak fix, and yes, resolution should
be "take the variant from vfs.git in the area of conflict".

In fact, I was just pondering whether to send a followup describing the
conflict resolution (== take the variant from vfs.git in the area of
conflict) or leave it be as too trivial.  Should've sent...