Message ID | 20191201184814.GA7335@magnolia (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL] xfs: new code for 5.5 | expand |
The pull request you sent on Sun, 1 Dec 2019 10:48:14 -0800:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfs-linux.git tags/xfs-5.5-merge-16
has been merged into torvalds/linux.git:
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/97eeb4d9d755605385fa329da9afa38729f3413c
Thank you!
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. 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. 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. Linus
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
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:59 AM Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:22:31PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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. Yes, this is the right solution. Note that this part of the series originally came from Al Viro, but I added more patches following the same idea. While working on a follow-up series, I now also noticed that the FS_IOC_RESVSP compat handler has always been broken for x32 user space. I don't think anyone cares, but my series in [1] addresses this as well by handling FS_IOC_RESVSP/ FS_IOC_UNRESVSP/FS_IOC_ZERO_RANGE on x86-64 as well, in addition to FS_IOC_RESVSP_32 etc. Arnd [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arnd/playground.git compat-ioctl-endgame