On 11/10/2017 10:22 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 08:22:32AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Actually, double checking, one of them is a little suspicious:
>>
>> if (a == &dev_attr_uuid.attr) {
>> <<<<<<< HEAD
>> if (uuid_is_null(&ns->uuid) &&
>> !memchr_inv(ns->nguid, 0, sizeof(ns->nguid)))
>> =======
>> if (uuid_is_null(&ids->uuid) ||
>> !memchr_inv(ids->nguid, 0, sizeof(ids->nguid)))
>>>>>>>>> 34a9690712aa386fb5fa9e3b8fb44a22f5f2aec6
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> with the previous copy using is_null && memchr_inv, the change to ids
>> makes it an OR instead. I'm going with the latter, but thought I'd bring
>> it up.
>
> The && from master is the right one, it comes from:
>
> ommit 007a61ae2f35c7fcf767313285c4924e81f11983
> Author: Martin Wilck <mwi...@suse.com>
> Date: Thu Sep 28 21:33:23 2017 +0200
>
> nvme: fix visibility of "uuid" ns attribute
>
> and needs to be logically applied to the new code as well.
That makes for a bit of an awkward merge, why wasn't this fixed up
in your tree?
In any case, I just fixed it up in my for-next.
--
Jens Axboe
