linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the erofs tree

Hi all,

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

fs/erofs/super.c

between commit:

e7cda1ee94f4 ("erofs: code cleanup by removing ifdef macro surrounding")

from the erofs tree and commit:

91a7c5e1d30e ("erofs: convert to use the new mount fs_context api")

from the 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.

Signature · 2 lines

Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

fs/erofs/super.c +0 -2

diff --cc fs/erofs/super.c
index 8e46d204a0c2,2c0bad903fa6..000000000000
@@@ -408,16 -365,12 +365,9 @@@ static int erofs_fc_fill_super(struct s
  	sb->s_time_gran = 1;
 
  	sb->s_op = &erofs_sops;
 -
 -#ifdef CONFIG_EROFS_FS_XATTR
  	sb->s_xattr = erofs_xattr_handlers;
 -#endif
 
- 	/* set erofs default mount options */
- 	erofs_default_options(sbi);

Quoted 40 lines · Stephen Rothwell

Hi all,

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

fs/erofs/super.c

between commit:

e7cda1ee94f4 ("erofs: code cleanup by removing ifdef macro surrounding")

from the erofs tree and commit:

91a7c5e1d30e ("erofs: convert to use the new mount fs_context api")

from the 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.

Signature · 2 lines

Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

fs/erofs/super.c +0 -0

diff --cc fs/erofs/super.c
index 8e46d204a0c2,2c0bad903fa6..000000000000
@@@ -408,16 -365,12 +365,9 @@@ static int erofs_fc_fill_super(struct s
  	sb->s_time_gran = 1;
 
  	sb->s_op = &erofs_sops;
 -
 -#ifdef CONFIG_EROFS_FS_XATTR
  	sb->s_xattr = erofs_xattr_handlers;
 -#endif

fs/erofs/super.c

Quoted 12 lines

fs/erofs/super.c +1 -8

- 	/* set erofs default mount options */
- 	erofs_default_options(sbi);
- 
- 	err = erofs_parse_options(sb, data);
- 	if (err)
- 		return err;
- 
- 	if (test_opt(sbi, POSIX_ACL))
+ 	if (test_opt(ctx, POSIX_ACL))
  		sb->s_flags |= SB_POSIXACL;
  	else
  		sb->s_flags &= ~SB_POSIXACL;

FWIW, I would be glad to have that old erofs commit moved over to erofs tree... Folks?

I'm fine with that, although I think it's mainly with vfs changes so could be better though with vfs tree. I will add this patch tomorrow anyway... Thanks for reminder!

Quoted 3 lines · Gao Xiang

I'm fine with that, although I think it's mainly with vfs changes so could be better though with vfs tree. I will add this patch tomorrow anyway... Thanks for reminder!

FWIW, my reasoning here is
* erofs tree exists and
* the patch is erofs-specific, affects nothing outside and
has no dependencies with anything currently done in VFS or in other filesystems and
* it does have (trivial) conflicts with the stuff in
erofs tree

So putting it into erofs tree would seem to be an obvious approach - minimizes the amount of cross-tree dependencies and headache for everyone involved...

I'm dropping it from #work.misc and #for-next now.