On 28.10.20 09:11, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 23:42:57 +0000 > Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 19:39, Alex Williamson >> <alex.william...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> VFIO update 2020-10-26 >>> >>> * Migration support (Kirti Wankhede) >>> * s390 DMA limiting (Matthew Rosato) >>> * zPCI hardware info (Matthew Rosato) >>> * Lock guard (Amey Narkhede) >>> * Print fixes (Zhengui li) >> >> I get a conflict here in >> include/standard-headers/linux/fuse.h: >> >> ++<<<<<<< HEAD >> +#define FUSE_ATTR_FLAGS (1 << 27) >> ++======= >> + #define FUSE_SUBMOUNTS (1 << 27) >> ++>>>>>>> remotes/awilliam/tags/vfio-update-20201026.0 >> >> I assume these should not both be trying to use the same value, >> so something has gone wrong somewhere. The conflicting commit >> now in master is Max's 97d741cc96dd08 ("linux/fuse.h: Pull in from Linux"). >> >> Can you sort out the correct resolution between you, please? >> (My guess is that Max's commit is the erroneous one because >> it doesn't look like it was created via a standard update >> from the kernel headers.) > > We should never change things in the synced headers other than via a > headers update (excluding fixups of prior messes.) I'm pointing it out > whenever I see something like that happening, but nobody is going to > catch all of those.
Well, it was a kernel update. Just based on a preliminary version of the kernel part of the FUSE submount feature. It was clear that the kernel part would have to be merged before the qemu/virtiofsd series, and that did happen, but Miklos (the FUSE maintainer) fixed some things on top while doing so, an that included changing the flag in question. As Adam wrote, I noted that I would thus have to write a v2 of the virtiofsd series. Unfortunately, that all was a bit buried in the thread, so I suppose for Dave it looked like the kernel series was applied, so the virtiofsd series could go in, too. And I in turn didn't catch that. :/ > Is there any place where we can have some kind of automatic check on a > pull request for that kind of stuff? We'd need to formalize an "update > headers" commit message, or maybe have the update script write some > kind of "last updated" file? It would also need to actually check against the kernel tree, because, well, I did use the script. Just against a kernel tree that never came to master. Max