Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-24301-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ZaAzOgd3iWL0feTU@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZaAzOgd3iWL0feTU@google.com>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:05:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgTbey3-RCz8ZpmTsMhUGf02YVV068k3OzrmOvJPowXfw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] f2fs update for 6.8-rc1
To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Linux F2FS Dev Mailing List <linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 10:28, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jaegeuk/f2fs.git tags/f2fs-for-6.8-rc1

Hmm. I got a somewhat confusing conflict in f2fs_rename().

And honestly, I really don't know what the right resolution is. What I
ended up with was this:

        if (old_is_dir) {
                if (old_dir_entry)
                        f2fs_set_link(old_inode, old_dir_entry,
                                                old_dir_page, new_dir);
                else
                        f2fs_put_page(old_dir_page, 0);
                f2fs_i_links_write(old_dir, false);
        }

which seems to me to be the right thing as a resolution. But I note
that linux-next has something different, and it is because Al said in

      https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231220013402.GW1674809@ZenIV/

that the resolution should just be

        if (old_dir_entry)
                f2fs_set_link(old_inode, old_dir_entry, old_dir_page, new_dir);
        if (old_is_dir)
                f2fs_i_links_write(old_dir, false);

instead.

Now, some of those differences are artificial - old_dir_entry can only
be set if old_is_dir is set, so the nesting difference is kind of a
red herring.

But I feel like that f2fs_put_page() is actually needed, or you end up
with a reference leak.

So despite the fact that Al is never wrong, I ended up going with my
gut, and kept my resolution that is different from linux-next.

End result: I'm now very leery of my merge. On the one hand, I think
it's right. On the other hand, the likelihood that Al is wrong is
pretty low.

So please double- and triple-check that merge, and please send in a
fix for it. Presumably with a comment along the lines of "Al was
right, don't try to overthink things".

Hubris. That's the word for thinking you know better than Al.

                Linus