From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751360Ab3JSXrV (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:47:21 -0400 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:33957 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750767Ab3JSXrT (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:47:19 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Mark Brown Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Miklos Szeredi , Miklos Szeredi , Thierry Reding , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20131019121548.GX2443@sirena.org.uk> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:47:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20131019121548.GX2443@sirena.org.uk> (Mark Brown's message of "Sat, 19 Oct 2013 13:15:48 +0100") Message-ID: <87k3h8escj.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX19bc7lyVxuPIynJqyTcLE0qTZkOpWoeEJk= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 98.207.154.105 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -0.0 BAYES_40 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 20 to 40% * [score: 0.3136] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Mark Brown X-Spam-Relay-Country: Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:46 -0700) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mark Brown writes: > Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in > fs/fuse/dir.c between 3c70b8eed (fuse: don't check_submounts_and_drop() > in RCU walk) in the fuse tree and 40216baa0 (vfs: Lazily remove mounts > on unlinked files and directories. v2) in the userns tree. > > I fixed it up as below and can carry as required: The fix looks right. However I think this conflict highlights a larger issue, as there are several other filesystems that call check_submounts_and_drop from the devalidate and possibly from rcu_walk today. Miklos what problem did you run into? Sigh. It looks like it probably makes sense to merge shrink_submounts_and_drop with d_invalidate, so filesystems don't even need to think about this issue. Eric > diff --cc fs/fuse/dir.c > index 0747f6e,b1cd7b7..0000000 > --- a/fs/fuse/dir.c > +++ b/fs/fuse/dir.c > @@@ -263,9 -259,7 +263,10 @@@ out > > invalid: > ret = 0; > - shrink_submounts_and_drop(entry); > + > - if (!(flags & LOOKUP_RCU) && check_submounts_and_drop(entry) != 0) > - ret = 1; > ++ if (!(flags & LOOKUP_RCU)) > ++ shrink_submounts_and_drop(entry); > ++ > goto out; > } >