Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:
fs/btrfs/file.c
between commit:
39bf7bdb48fe ("backing_dev: remove current->backing_dev_info")
from the mm tree and commit:
3564004ccddf ("btrfs: determine synchronous writers from bio or writeback control")
from the btrfs 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 fs/btrfs/file.c
index ecd43ab66fa6,f53b7b75092d..000000000000
--- a/fs/btrfs/file.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c
@@@ -1683,9 -1682,7 +1679,6 @@@ ssize_t btrfs_do_write_iter(struct kioc
num_written = num_sync;
}
- if (sync)
- atomic_dec(&inode->sync_writers);
-
- current->backing_dev_info = NULL;
return num_written;
}
Hi all,
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 09:08:03 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/btrfs/file.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 39bf7bdb48fe ("backing_dev: remove current->backing_dev_info")
>
> from the mm tree and commit:
>
> 3564004ccddf ("btrfs: determine synchronous writers from bio or writeback control")
>
> from the btrfs 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 fs/btrfs/file.c
> index ecd43ab66fa6,f53b7b75092d..000000000000
> --- a/fs/btrfs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c
> @@@ -1683,9 -1682,7 +1679,6 @@@ ssize_t btrfs_do_write_iter(struct kioc
> num_written = num_sync;
> }
>
> - if (sync)
> - atomic_dec(&inode->sync_writers);
> -
> - current->backing_dev_info = NULL;
> return num_written;
> }
>
This is now a conflict between the mm-stable tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Hi all,
[Forgot the diff ...]
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:14:21 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/btrfs/super.c
>
> between commit:
>
> c0824542e4d1 ("fs: super: dynamically allocate the s_shrink")
>
> from the mm tree and commit:
>
> 2ebed4689ba2 ("btrfs: open block devices after superblock creation")
>
> from the btrfs 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 fs/btrfs/super.c
index 3b165d9967bb,3eff75e06a57..000000000000
--- a/fs/btrfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c
@@@ -1518,8 -1459,23 +1459,23 @@@ static struct dentry *btrfs_mount_root(
if ((flags ^ s->s_flags) & SB_RDONLY)
error = -EBUSY;
} else {
- snprintf(s->s_id, sizeof(s->s_id), "%pg", bdev);
+ struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices = fs_info->fs_devices;
+
+ mutex_lock(&uuid_mutex);
+ error = btrfs_open_devices(fs_devices, sb_open_mode(flags),
+ fs_type);
+ mutex_unlock(&uuid_mutex);
+ if (error)
+ goto error_deactivate;
+
+ if (!(flags & SB_RDONLY) && fs_devices->rw_devices == 0) {
+ error = -EACCES;
+ goto error_deactivate;
+ }
+
+ snprintf(s->s_id, sizeof(s->s_id), "%pg",
+ fs_devices->latest_dev->bdev);
- shrinker_debugfs_rename(&s->s_shrink, "sb-%s:%s", fs_type->name,
+ shrinker_debugfs_rename(s->s_shrink, "sb-%s:%s", fs_type->name,
s->s_id);
btrfs_sb(s)->bdev_holder = fs_type;
error = btrfs_fill_super(s, fs_devices, data);
Hi Stephen,
The diff looks good to me.
Thanks,
Qi
On 2023/9/15 07:47, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [Forgot the diff ...]
>
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:14:21 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> fs/btrfs/super.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> c0824542e4d1 ("fs: super: dynamically allocate the s_shrink")
>>
>> from the mm tree and commit:
>>
>> 2ebed4689ba2 ("btrfs: open block devices after superblock creation")
>>
>> from the btrfs 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.
>