Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the drbd tree got a conflict in
fs/fs-writeback.c between commit f17625b318d9b151e7bd41e31223e9d89b2aaa77
("Revert "writeback: ensure that WB_SYNC_NONE writeback with sb pinned is
sync"") from the block tree and commits
5c92877730b509fefc445bbba6b3bc441c2c272a ("writeback: fix early free of
work struct") and dff38fd3d1d0914ac0715445bbe21fbce9abed15 ("writeback:
fix non-integrity write-back") from the drbd tree.
I suspect this is caused because the drbd tree id based on a different
version of the block tree to what is in the block tree for-next branch.
I just used the version of this file from the block tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
On Wed, Jun 02 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the drbd tree got a conflict in
> fs/fs-writeback.c between commit f17625b318d9b151e7bd41e31223e9d89b2aaa77
> ("Revert "writeback: ensure that WB_SYNC_NONE writeback with sb pinned is
> sync"") from the block tree and commits
> 5c92877730b509fefc445bbba6b3bc441c2c272a ("writeback: fix early free of
> work struct") and dff38fd3d1d0914ac0715445bbe21fbce9abed15 ("writeback:
> fix non-integrity write-back") from the drbd tree.
>
> I suspect this is caused because the drbd tree id based on a different
> version of the block tree to what is in the block tree for-next branch.
> I just used the version of this file from the block tree.
Yeah, I had to yank a few patches since they didn't quite work out in
Christophs testing. The for-next version in the block tree has it all,
so that approach works.
--
Jens Axboe