Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
include/linux/bvec.h
between commit:
1200e07f3ad4 ("block: don't use for-inside-for in bio_for_each_segment_all")
from Linus' tree and commit:
52d52d1c98a9 ("block: only allow contiguous page structs in a bio_vec")
from the block 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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc include/linux/bvec.h
index 3bc91879e1e2,44b0f4684190..000000000000
--- a/include/linux/bvec.h
+++ b/include/linux/bvec.h
@@@ -156,8 -151,8 +151,8 @@@ static inline void bvec_advance(const s
{
struct bio_vec *bv = &iter_all->bv;
- if (bv->bv_page) {
+ if (iter_all->done) {
- bv->bv_page = nth_page(bv->bv_page, 1);
+ bv->bv_page++;
bv->bv_offset = 0;
} else {
bv->bv_page = bvec->bv_page;
On 4/14/19 9:06 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
>
> include/linux/bvec.h
>
> between commit:
>
> 1200e07f3ad4 ("block: don't use for-inside-for in bio_for_each_segment_all")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
> 52d52d1c98a9 ("block: only allow contiguous page structs in a bio_vec")
>
> from the block 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.
Looks fine Stephen - but due to this and the BFQ one, I've merged in
5.1-rc5 and resolved them as well. Tomorrow's branch should merge
cleanly for you.
--
Jens Axboe
On 1/27/20 5:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/io_uring.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 73e08e711d9c ("Revert "io_uring: only allow submit from owning task"")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
> 9ef4f124894b ("io_uring: clamp to_submit in io_submit_sqes()")
>
> from the block 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.
Thanks, looks good to me. I'll try cooperating better with myself ;-)
--
Jens Axboe