linux-next: manual merge of the djw-vfs tree with the xfs tree

linux-next: manual merge of the djw-vfs tree with the xfs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1558 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  fs/xfs/scrub/scrub.c

between commit:

  526aab5f5790 ("xfs: implement online scrubbing of rtsummary info")

from the xfs tree and commit:

  ce85a1e04645 ("xfs: stabilize fs summary counters for online fsck")

from the djw-vfs 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/xfs/scrub/scrub.c
index e92129d74462,a0fffbcd022b..000000000000
--- a/fs/xfs/scrub/scrub.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/scrub/scrub.c
@@@ -178,16 -178,16 +178,18 @@@ xchk_teardown
  	}
  	if (sc->ip) {
  		if (sc->ilock_flags)
 -			xfs_iunlock(sc->ip, sc->ilock_flags);
 -		if (sc->ip != ip_in &&
 -		    !xfs_internal_inum(sc->mp, sc->ip->i_ino))
 -			xchk_irele(sc, sc->ip);
 +			xchk_iunlock(sc, sc->ilock_flags);
 +		xchk_irele(sc, sc->ip);
  		sc->ip = NULL;
  	}
- 	if (sc->sm->sm_flags & XFS_SCRUB_IFLAG_REPAIR)
+ 	if (sc->flags & XCHK_HAVE_FREEZE_PROT) {
+ 		sc->flags &= ~XCHK_HAVE_FREEZE_PROT;
  		mnt_drop_write_file(sc->file);
+ 	}
 +	if (sc->xfile) {
 +		xfile_destroy(sc->xfile);
 +		sc->xfile = NULL;
 +	}
  	if (sc->buf) {
  		if (sc->buf_cleanup)
  			sc->buf_cleanup(sc->buf);

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the djw-vfs tree with the xfs tree

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 09:33:47AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the djw-vfs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/xfs/scrub/scrub.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   526aab5f5790 ("xfs: implement online scrubbing of rtsummary info")
> 
> from the xfs tree and commit:
> 
>   ce85a1e04645 ("xfs: stabilize fs summary counters for online fsck")
> 
> from the djw-vfs 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/xfs/scrub/scrub.c
> index e92129d74462,a0fffbcd022b..000000000000
> --- a/fs/xfs/scrub/scrub.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/scrub/scrub.c
> @@@ -178,16 -178,16 +178,18 @@@ xchk_teardown
>   	}
>   	if (sc->ip) {
>   		if (sc->ilock_flags)
>  -			xfs_iunlock(sc->ip, sc->ilock_flags);
>  -		if (sc->ip != ip_in &&
>  -		    !xfs_internal_inum(sc->mp, sc->ip->i_ino))
>  -			xchk_irele(sc, sc->ip);
>  +			xchk_iunlock(sc, sc->ilock_flags);
>  +		xchk_irele(sc, sc->ip);
>   		sc->ip = NULL;
>   	}
> - 	if (sc->sm->sm_flags & XFS_SCRUB_IFLAG_REPAIR)
> + 	if (sc->flags & XCHK_HAVE_FREEZE_PROT) {
> + 		sc->flags &= ~XCHK_HAVE_FREEZE_PROT;
>   		mnt_drop_write_file(sc->file);
> + 	}

Yep, I changed the mnt_drop_write_file conditional to be an explicit
flag instead of implied by the XFS_SCRUB_IFLAG_REPAIR coming from
userspace.  You've correctly resolved both conflicts, thank you.

(And apologies for things being way messier than is traditional.)

--D

>  +	if (sc->xfile) {
>  +		xfile_destroy(sc->xfile);
>  +		sc->xfile = NULL;
>  +	}
>   	if (sc->buf) {
>   		if (sc->buf_cleanup)
>   			sc->buf_cleanup(sc->buf);