Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 2 Dec 2019 15:58:21 -0800
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: new code for 5.5
Message-ID: <20191202235821.GF7335@magnolia>
References: <20191201184814.GA7335@magnolia>
 <CAHk-=wi+0suvJAw8hxLkKJHgYwRy-0vg4-dw9_Co6nQHK-XF9Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wi+0suvJAw8hxLkKJHgYwRy-0vg4-dw9_Co6nQHK-XF9Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:22:31PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 10:48 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > FYI, Stephen Rothwell reported a merge conflict with the y2038 tree at
> > the end of October[1].  His resolution looked pretty straightforward,
> > though the current y2038 for-next branch no longer changes fs/ioctl.c
> > (and the changes that were in it are not in upstream master), so that
> > may not be necessary.
> 
> The changes and conflicts are definitely still there (now upstream),
> I'm not sure what made you not see them.  But thanks for the note, I
> compared my end result with linux-next to verify.

Aha!  I pulled master yesterday morning, tried a test merge with xfs,
saw the lack of merge conflicts, and sent you the xfs pull request.  A
few hours later you pulled in the compat ioctl changes from Arnd's git
tree, but the branch in his repo that feeds the -next tree doesn't
contain the compat ioctl changes, so I assumed that meant he wasn't
going to send them for 5.5... and then thought better of myself and
attached an FYI anyway.

> My resolution is different from Stephen's. All my non-x86-64 FS_IOC_*
> cases just do "goto found_handler", because the compat case is
> identical for the native case outside of the special x86-64 alignment
> behavior, and I think that's what Arnd meant to happen.

Yeah, that looks correct to me.  Stephen's solution backed out the
changes that Arnd made for the !x86_64 compat ioctl case, so I or
someone would have had to re-apply them.

> There was some other minor difference too, but it's also possible I
> could have messed up, so cc'ing Stephen and Arnd on this just in case
> they have comments.

<nod> Thanks for sorting this out.

--D

> 
> 
>                Linus