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

PATCH [email protected] 3 participants 6 messages Apr 13, 2023 – Apr 20, 2023

Subsystems (2)

Linux-next tree EROFS file system

lore

Share & tools

lore

[email protected]

author maintainer

2023-04-13 14:47 UTC #0 lore raw

Hi all,

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

fs/erofs/xattr.c

between commit:

a5488f29835c0 ("fs: simplify ->listxattr() implementation")

from the vfs-idmapping tree and commit:

303f50cf89b24 ("erofs: handle long xattr name prefixes properly")

from the erofs 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.

fs/erofs/xattr.c +0 -0

diff --cc fs/erofs/xattr.c
index 015462763bdd5,a04724c816e5f..0000000000000
@@@ -483,12 -517,28 +513,26 @@@ static int xattr_entrylist(struct xattr
  {
  	struct listxattr_iter *it =
  		container_of(_it, struct listxattr_iter, it);
- 	unsigned int prefix_len;
- 	const char *prefix;
+ 	unsigned int base_index = entry->e_name_index;
+ 	unsigned int prefix_len, infix_len = 0;
+ 	const char *prefix, *infix = NULL;
+ 	const struct xattr_handler *h;
+ 
+ 	if (entry->e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX) {
+ 		struct erofs_sb_info *sbi = EROFS_SB(_it->sb);
+ 		struct erofs_xattr_prefix_item *pf = sbi->xattr_prefixes +
+ 			(entry->e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX_MASK);
+ 
+ 		if (pf >= sbi->xattr_prefixes + sbi->xattr_prefix_count)
+ 			return 1;
+ 		infix = pf->prefix->infix;
+ 		infix_len = pf->infix_len;
+ 		base_index = pf->prefix->base_index;
+ 	}
  
- 	prefix = erofs_xattr_prefix(entry->e_name_index, it->dentry);
- 	if (!prefix)
+ 	h = erofs_xattr_handler(base_index);
+ 	if (!h || (h->list && !h->list(it->dentry)))
  		return 1;
 -
 -	prefix = xattr_prefix(h);
  	prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
  
  	if (!it->buffer) {

Mark Brown

author maintainer

2023-04-13 15:49 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 6 lines · On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 03:46:51PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:

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.

No, that's wrong. This:

fs/erofs/xattr.c +0 -0

diff --cc fs/erofs/xattr.c
index 015462763bdd5,a04724c816e5f..0000000000000
@@@ -483,12 -517,28 +513,25 @@@ static int xattr_entrylist(struct xattr
  {
  	struct listxattr_iter *it =
  		container_of(_it, struct listxattr_iter, it);
- 	unsigned int prefix_len;
- 	const char *prefix;
+ 	unsigned int base_index = entry->e_name_index;
+ 	unsigned int prefix_len, infix_len = 0;
+ 	const char *prefix, *infix = NULL;
 -	const struct xattr_handler *h;
+ 
+ 	if (entry->e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX) {
+ 		struct erofs_sb_info *sbi = EROFS_SB(_it->sb);
+ 		struct erofs_xattr_prefix_item *pf = sbi->xattr_prefixes +
+ 			(entry->e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX_MASK);
+ 
+ 		if (pf >= sbi->xattr_prefixes + sbi->xattr_prefix_count)
+ 			return 1;
+ 		infix = pf->prefix->infix;
+ 		infix_len = pf->infix_len;
+ 		base_index = pf->prefix->base_index;
+ 	}
  
- 	prefix = erofs_xattr_prefix(entry->e_name_index, it->dentry);
 -	h = erofs_xattr_handler(base_index);
 -	if (!h || (h->list && !h->list(it->dentry)))
++	prefix = erofs_xattr_prefix(base_index, it->dentry);
 +	if (!prefix)
  		return 1;
 -
 -	prefix = xattr_prefix(h);
  	prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
  
  	if (!it->buffer) {

Gao Xiang

2023-04-13 16:16 UTC #2 lore raw

Hi Mark,

Quoted 10 lines · Mark Brown

Quoted 6 lines · On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 03:46:51PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
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.
No, that's wrong. This:

Thanks. Actually I didn't update the corresponind xattr patches (just rebase some older commits, also I'd like to avoid in the future, but sometimes it's impossible at least if some RVB is added...)

I think it could be resolved as before by Stephen:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]

And which looks the same as below:

Quoted 29 lines

fs/erofs/xattr.c +15 -3

diff --cc fs/erofs/xattr.c
index 015462763bdd5,a04724c816e5f..0000000000000
@@@ -483,12 -517,28 +513,25 @@@ static int xattr_entrylist(struct xattr
   {
   	struct listxattr_iter *it =
   		container_of(_it, struct listxattr_iter, it);
- 	unsigned int prefix_len;
- 	const char *prefix;
+ 	unsigned int base_index = entry->e_name_index;
+ 	unsigned int prefix_len, infix_len = 0;
+ 	const char *prefix, *infix = NULL;
  -	const struct xattr_handler *h;
+
+ 	if (entry->e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX) {
+ 		struct erofs_sb_info *sbi = EROFS_SB(_it->sb);
+ 		struct erofs_xattr_prefix_item *pf = sbi->xattr_prefixes +
+ 			(entry->e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX_MASK);
+
+ 		if (pf >= sbi->xattr_prefixes + sbi->xattr_prefix_count)
+ 			return 1;
+ 		infix = pf->prefix->infix;
+ 		infix_len = pf->infix_len;
+ 		base_index = pf->prefix->base_index;
+ 	}
 
- 	prefix = erofs_xattr_prefix(entry->e_name_index, it->dentry);

fs/erofs/xattr.c

Quoted 10 lines

fs/erofs/xattr.c +1 -0

  -	h = erofs_xattr_handler(base_index);
  -	if (!h || (h->list && !h->list(it->dentry)))
++	prefix = erofs_xattr_prefix(base_index, it->dentry);
  +	if (!prefix)
   		return 1;
  -
  -	prefix = xattr_prefix(h);
   	prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
 
   	if (!it->buffer) {

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Mark Brown

author maintainer

2023-04-13 16:23 UTC #3 lore raw

Quoted 8 lines · Gao Xiang

Thanks. Actually I didn't update the corresponind xattr patches (just rebase some older commits, also I'd like to avoid in the future, but sometimes it's impossible at least if some RVB is added...)
I think it could be resolved as before by Stephen:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
And which looks the same as below:

Probably some context changed which caused me to have to reresolve the conflict? Or perhaps just rerere not syncing properly from Stephen's work.

Gao Xiang

2023-04-13 16:27 UTC #4 lore raw

Quoted 6 lines · Mark Brown

Quoted 3 lines · Gao Xiang
Thanks. Actually I didn't update the corresponind xattr patches (just rebase some older commits, also I'd like to avoid in the future, but sometimes it's impossible at least if some RVB is added...)

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 4 lines
I think it could be resolved as before by Stephen:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
And which looks the same as below:
Probably some context changed which caused me to have to reresolve the conflict? Or perhaps just rerere not syncing properly from Stephen's work.

Not sure.. I didn't change the file itself.

Anyway, thanks for the efforts and time!

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Christian Brauner

2023-04-20 09:37 UTC #5 lore raw

In reply to Mark Brown

Quoted 10 lines · Mark Brown

Quoted 6 lines · On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 03:46:51PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
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.
No, that's wrong. This:

Yes, that fixup looks correct, thank you!

Quoted 39 lines

fs/erofs/xattr.c +16 -3

diff --cc fs/erofs/xattr.c
index 015462763bdd5,a04724c816e5f..0000000000000
@@@ -483,12 -517,28 +513,25 @@@ static int xattr_entrylist(struct xattr
  {
  	struct listxattr_iter *it =
  		container_of(_it, struct listxattr_iter, it);
- 	unsigned int prefix_len;
- 	const char *prefix;
+ 	unsigned int base_index = entry->e_name_index;
+ 	unsigned int prefix_len, infix_len = 0;
+ 	const char *prefix, *infix = NULL;
 -	const struct xattr_handler *h;
+ 
+ 	if (entry->e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX) {
+ 		struct erofs_sb_info *sbi = EROFS_SB(_it->sb);
+ 		struct erofs_xattr_prefix_item *pf = sbi->xattr_prefixes +
+ 			(entry->e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX_MASK);
+ 
+ 		if (pf >= sbi->xattr_prefixes + sbi->xattr_prefix_count)
+ 			return 1;
+ 		infix = pf->prefix->infix;
+ 		infix_len = pf->infix_len;
+ 		base_index = pf->prefix->base_index;
+ 	}
 
- 	prefix = erofs_xattr_prefix(entry->e_name_index, it->dentry);
 -	h = erofs_xattr_handler(base_index);
 -	if (!h || (h->list && !h->list(it->dentry)))
++	prefix = erofs_xattr_prefix(base_index, it->dentry);
 +	if (!prefix)
  		return 1;
 -
 -	prefix = xattr_prefix(h);
  	prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
 
  	if (!it->buffer) {