Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
fs/overlayfs/file.c
between commit:
f8f29a49ec21 ("ovl: move ovl_file_accessed() to aio completion")
e57757c5d874 ("ovl: use simpler function to convert iocb to rw flags")
from the overlayfs tree and commit:
2d1b3bbc3dd5 ("ovl: disable IOCB_DIO_CALLER_COMP")
from the vfs-brauner 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/overlayfs/file.c
index 05ec614f7054,693971d20280..000000000000
--- a/fs/overlayfs/file.c
+++ b/fs/overlayfs/file.c
@@@ -398,16 -389,22 +398,22 @@@ static ssize_t ovl_write_iter(struct ki
goto out_fdput;
if (!ovl_should_sync(OVL_FS(inode->i_sb)))
- ifl &= ~(IOCB_DSYNC | IOCB_SYNC);
+ flags &= ~(IOCB_DSYNC | IOCB_SYNC);
+ /*
+ * Overlayfs doesn't support deferred completions, don't copy
+ * this property in case it is set by the issuer.
+ */
- ifl &= ~IOCB_DIO_CALLER_COMP;
++ flags &= ~IOCB_DIO_CALLER_COMP;
+
- old_cred = ovl_override_creds(file_inode(file)->i_sb);
+ old_cred = ovl_override_creds(inode->i_sb);
if (is_sync_kiocb(iocb)) {
+ rwf_t rwf = iocb_to_rw_flags(flags);
+
file_start_write(real.file);
- ret = vfs_iter_write(real.file, iter, &iocb->ki_pos,
- ovl_iocb_to_rwf(ifl));
+ ret = vfs_iter_write(real.file, iter, &iocb->ki_pos, rwf);
file_end_write(real.file);
- /* Update size */
- ovl_copyattr(inode);
+ ovl_rw_complete(iocb);
} else {
struct ovl_aio_req *aio_req;
Hi Amir,
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 08:09:51 +0300 Amir Goldstein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> At this opportunity, I would like to ask you to add branch ovl-fixes
> from ssh://gitolite.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/overlayfs/vfs.git
> to linux-next, because I will need to send some ovl fixes for 6.6 in
> the near future.
Added from tomorrow.
Thanks for adding your subsystem tree as a participant of linux-next. As
you may know, this is not a judgement of your code. The purpose of
linux-next is for integration testing and to lower the impact of
conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window.
You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have
been:
* submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's
Signed-off-by,
* posted to the relevant mailing list,
* reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
* successfully unit tested, and
* destined for the current or next Linux merge window.
Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him
to fetch). It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[email protected]
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 3:24 AM Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/overlayfs/file.c
>
> between commit:
>
> f8f29a49ec21 ("ovl: move ovl_file_accessed() to aio completion")
> e57757c5d874 ("ovl: use simpler function to convert iocb to rw flags")
>
> from the overlayfs tree and commit:
>
> 2d1b3bbc3dd5 ("ovl: disable IOCB_DIO_CALLER_COMP")
>
> from the vfs-brauner 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/overlayfs/file.c
> index 05ec614f7054,693971d20280..000000000000
> --- a/fs/overlayfs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/overlayfs/file.c
> @@@ -398,16 -389,22 +398,22 @@@ static ssize_t ovl_write_iter(struct ki
> goto out_fdput;
>
> if (!ovl_should_sync(OVL_FS(inode->i_sb)))
> - ifl &= ~(IOCB_DSYNC | IOCB_SYNC);
> + flags &= ~(IOCB_DSYNC | IOCB_SYNC);
>
> + /*
> + * Overlayfs doesn't support deferred completions, don't copy
> + * this property in case it is set by the issuer.
> + */
> - ifl &= ~IOCB_DIO_CALLER_COMP;
> ++ flags &= ~IOCB_DIO_CALLER_COMP;
> +
> - old_cred = ovl_override_creds(file_inode(file)->i_sb);
> + old_cred = ovl_override_creds(inode->i_sb);
> if (is_sync_kiocb(iocb)) {
> + rwf_t rwf = iocb_to_rw_flags(flags);
> +
> file_start_write(real.file);
> - ret = vfs_iter_write(real.file, iter, &iocb->ki_pos,
> - ovl_iocb_to_rwf(ifl));
> + ret = vfs_iter_write(real.file, iter, &iocb->ki_pos, rwf);
> file_end_write(real.file);
> - /* Update size */
> - ovl_copyattr(inode);
> + ovl_rw_complete(iocb);
> } else {
> struct ovl_aio_req *aio_req;
>
Thanks Stephen, your fix is correct.
Serves me right for doing an unnecessary var name change...
Anyway, the conflict is with vfs.fixes branch destined for 6.6,
so I will rebase overlayfs-next (for 6.7) as soon as vfs.fixes is merged.
At this opportunity, I would like to ask you to add branch ovl-fixes
from ssh://gitolite.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/overlayfs/vfs.git
to linux-next, because I will need to send some ovl fixes for 6.6 in
the near future.
Thanks,
Amir.