Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:

  Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst

between commits:

  336faf5d9115c ("VFS: make lookup_one_qstr_excl() static.")
  4d94ce88c77e7 ("VFS: unexport lock_rename(), lock_rename_child(), unlock_rename()")

from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:

  408d8af01f3a4 ("for_each_alias(): helper macro for iterating through dentries of given inode")

from the vfs tree.

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.

diff --cc Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
index d02aa57e44775,9a9babd9ec486..0000000000000
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
@@@ -1364,14 -1364,10 +1364,22 @@@ lifetime, consider using inode_set_cach
  
  ---
  
 +**mandatory**
 +
 +lookup_one_qstr_excl() is no longer exported - use start_creating() or
 +similar.
 +---
 +
 +** mandatory**
 +
 +lock_rename(), lock_rename_child(), unlock_rename() are no
 +longer available.  Use start_renaming() or similar.
++---
 +
+ **recommended**
+ 
+ If you really need to iterate through dentries for given inode, use
+ for_each_alias(dentry, inode) instead of hlist_for_each_entry; better
+ yet, see if any of the exported primitives could be used instead of
+ the entire loop.  You still need to hold ->i_lock of the inode over
+ either form of manual loop.

On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 01:43:50PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   336faf5d9115c ("VFS: make lookup_one_qstr_excl() static.")
>   4d94ce88c77e7 ("VFS: unexport lock_rename(), lock_rename_child(), unlock_rename()")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> 
>   408d8af01f3a4 ("for_each_alias(): helper macro for iterating through dentries of given inode")
> 
> from the vfs tree.
> 
> 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.

FWIW, I suspect that it might be a good policy to put notes on likely
-next conflicts and their suggested resolution in the head commits of
#for-next branches.  What I'd done yesterday was
commit e82ff9b6cb767fc823d5e461034f32388c4092a2 (vfs/for-next, for-next)
Merge: e252ed898857 14a51045e10d
Author: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Wed Apr 8 03:17:38 2026 -0400
 
    Merge branches 'work.coda' and 'work.dcache-busy-wait' into for-next
 
    -next: trivial conflict in Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst (several
    branches append to the end of that file, order of entries is irrelevant)
 
    -next: hopefully no cifs conflict anymore, but if they still use the
    variant with ->d_u.d_alias in cifs_d_mark_tmpfile(), just replace the
    line in question with
            BUG_ON(d_really_is_positive(dentry));
    as in fs/dcache.c:d_mark_tmpfile().

On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 06:16:39PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 01:43:50PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > 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.

> FWIW, I suspect that it might be a good policy to put notes on likely
> -next conflicts and their suggested resolution in the head commits of
> #for-next branches.  What I'd done yesterday was

Ah, I'll try to remember to look for those, thanks!  It's helpful to
have some ideas for what to do.  People often drop me emails about this
stuff as well if that's easier for people.