Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the nfsd tree

[Chuck Lever]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 11:41:18AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   b1f1961080c4 ("nfsd: allow layout state to be admin-revoked.")
> 
> from the nfsd tree and commit:
> 
>   7b8001013d72 ("filelock: don't do security checks on nfsd setlease calls")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner tree.

Christian, Jeff -

For the remaining duration of v6.9 development, should I rebase
nfsd-next on vfs-brauner ?


> 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/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> index b1e585c1d9a3,4c0d00bdfbb1..4f3072b5979a
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> @@@ -152,23 -152,6 +152,23 @@@ void nfsd4_setup_layout_type(struct svc
>   #endif
>   }
>   
>  +void nfsd4_close_layout(struct nfs4_layout_stateid *ls)
>  +{
>  +	struct nfsd_file *fl;
>  +
>  +	spin_lock(&ls->ls_stid.sc_file->fi_lock);
>  +	fl = ls->ls_file;
>  +	ls->ls_file = NULL;
>  +	spin_unlock(&ls->ls_stid.sc_file->fi_lock);
>  +
>  +	if (fl) {
>  +		if (!nfsd4_layout_ops[ls->ls_layout_type]->disable_recalls)
> - 			vfs_setlease(fl->nf_file, F_UNLCK, NULL,
> - 				     (void **)&ls);
> ++			kernel_setlease(fl->nf_file, F_UNLCK, NULL,
> ++					(void **)&ls);
>  +		nfsd_file_put(fl);
>  +	}
>  +}
>  +
>   static void
>   nfsd4_free_layout_stateid(struct nfs4_stid *stid)
>   {



-- 
Chuck Lever