Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the mtd tree got a conflict in:
drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
between commit:
1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
ff6abbe85634 ("mtd: block2mtd: Add a valid holder to blkdev_put()")
from the mtd tree.
I fixed it up (I just used the former) 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
Hi,
[email protected] wrote on Mon, 30 Oct 2023 10:34:15 +1100:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the mtd tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
I haven't seen this commit, I was not Cc'ed.
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
>
> ff6abbe85634 ("mtd: block2mtd: Add a valid holder to blkdev_put()")
I will drop this commit from mtd/next. Please take it through the
vfs-brauner tree as well to avoid conflicts or otherwise, Richard, can
you send an update at -rc1?
Thanks,
Miquèl
----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Miquel Raynal" <[email protected]>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the mtd tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
>
> I haven't seen this commit, I was not Cc'ed.
Me neither. :-/
>> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
>>
>> ff6abbe85634 ("mtd: block2mtd: Add a valid holder to blkdev_put()")
>
> I will drop this commit from mtd/next. Please take it through the
> vfs-brauner tree as well to avoid conflicts or otherwise, Richard, can
> you send an update at -rc1?
A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.
I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable releases.
Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is large.
On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree and therefore
is not suitable for stable either.
Thanks,
//richard
On Mon 30-10-23 21:11:36, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> ----- Urspr?ngliche Mail -----
> > Von: "Miquel Raynal" <[email protected]>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the mtd tree got a conflict in:
> >>
> >> drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
> >>
> >> between commit:
> >>
> >> 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> >
> > I haven't seen this commit, I was not Cc'ed.
>
> Me neither. :-/
I'm sorry for that but I took the maintainers entry for BLOCK2MTD which is:
BLOCK2MTD DRIVER
M: Joern Engel <[email protected]>
L: [email protected]
S: Maintained
F: drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
And both Joern and linux-mtd were CCed on the patch. If different people
should be CCed these days, please update the entry. Thanks!
> >> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> >>
> >> ff6abbe85634 ("mtd: block2mtd: Add a valid holder to blkdev_put()")
> >
> > I will drop this commit from mtd/next. Please take it through the
> > vfs-brauner tree as well to avoid conflicts or otherwise, Richard, can
> > you send an update at -rc1?
>
> A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.
>
> I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable releases.
> Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is large.
> On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree and therefore
> is not suitable for stable either.
Yes, that's one of the cases where stable rules make life harder for actual
fixes... You can try pushing ff6abbe85634 to stable even if it is not
upstream since it fixes a real bug and taking the upstream solution is
indeed IMO too intrusive. Sometimes stable maintainers accept such fixes.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR
Jan,
----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>> >> 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
>> >
>> > I haven't seen this commit, I was not Cc'ed.
>>
>> Me neither. :-/
>
> I'm sorry for that but I took the maintainers entry for BLOCK2MTD which is:
>
> BLOCK2MTD DRIVER
> M: Joern Engel <[email protected]>
> L: [email protected]
> S: Maintained
> F: drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
>
> And both Joern and linux-mtd were CCed on the patch. If different people
> should be CCed these days, please update the entry. Thanks!
Ah, you did a manual lookup?
Because get_maintainer.pl seems to do the right thing:
$ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
Joern Engel <[email protected]> (maintainer:BLOCK2MTD DRIVER)
Miquel Raynal <[email protected]> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
Richard Weinberger <[email protected]> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
Vignesh Raghavendra <[email protected]> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
[email protected] (open list:BLOCK2MTD DRIVER)
[email protected] (open list)
>> >> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
>> >>
>> >> ff6abbe85634 ("mtd: block2mtd: Add a valid holder to blkdev_put()")
>> >
>> > I will drop this commit from mtd/next. Please take it through the
>> > vfs-brauner tree as well to avoid conflicts or otherwise, Richard, can
>> > you send an update at -rc1?
>>
>> A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to
>> bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
>> is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.
>>
>> I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable releases.
>> Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is large.
>> On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree and therefore
>> is not suitable for stable either.
>
> Yes, that's one of the cases where stable rules make life harder for actual
> fixes... You can try pushing ff6abbe85634 to stable even if it is not
> upstream since it fixes a real bug and taking the upstream solution is
> indeed IMO too intrusive. Sometimes stable maintainers accept such fixes.
Yep, let's try this route. :-)
Thanks,
//richard
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 10:02:10AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Jan,
>
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> >> >> 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> >> >
> >> > I haven't seen this commit, I was not Cc'ed.
> >>
> >> Me neither. :-/
> >
> > I'm sorry for that but I took the maintainers entry for BLOCK2MTD which is:
> >
> > BLOCK2MTD DRIVER
> > M: Joern Engel <[email protected]>
> > L: [email protected]
> > S: Maintained
> > F: drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
> >
> > And both Joern and linux-mtd were CCed on the patch. If different people
> > should be CCed these days, please update the entry. Thanks!
>
> Ah, you did a manual lookup?
> Because get_maintainer.pl seems to do the right thing:
>
> $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
> Joern Engel <[email protected]> (maintainer:BLOCK2MTD DRIVER)
> Miquel Raynal <[email protected]> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
> Richard Weinberger <[email protected]> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
> Vignesh Raghavendra <[email protected]> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
> [email protected] (open list:BLOCK2MTD DRIVER)
> [email protected] (open list)
>
> >> >> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> >> >>
> >> >> ff6abbe85634 ("mtd: block2mtd: Add a valid holder to blkdev_put()")
> >> >
> >> > I will drop this commit from mtd/next. Please take it through the
> >> > vfs-brauner tree as well to avoid conflicts or otherwise, Richard, can
> >> > you send an update at -rc1?
> >>
> >> A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to
> >> bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> >> is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.
> >>
> >> I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable releases.
> >> Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is large.
> >> On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree and therefore
> >> is not suitable for stable either.
> >
> > Yes, that's one of the cases where stable rules make life harder for actual
> > fixes... You can try pushing ff6abbe85634 to stable even if it is not
> > upstream since it fixes a real bug and taking the upstream solution is
> > indeed IMO too intrusive. Sometimes stable maintainers accept such fixes.
>
> Yep, let's try this route. :-)
Is there anything for me to do? IOW, do I need to grab that patch or
not? :)
Christian,
----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Christian Brauner" <[email protected]>
>> >> A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to
>> >> bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
>> >> is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.
>> >>
>> >> I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable releases.
>> >> Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is large.
>> >> On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree and therefore
>> >> is not suitable for stable either.
>> >
>> > Yes, that's one of the cases where stable rules make life harder for actual
>> > fixes... You can try pushing ff6abbe85634 to stable even if it is not
>> > upstream since it fixes a real bug and taking the upstream solution is
>> > indeed IMO too intrusive. Sometimes stable maintainers accept such fixes.
>>
>> Yep, let's try this route. :-)
>
> Is there anything for me to do? IOW, do I need to grab that patch or
> not? :)
No, just keep Jan's patch. (-:
Miquel, we could also keep ff6abbe85634 in the mtd tree and explain Linus the
conflict, what do you think? That would help with back porting to stable.
Thanks,
//richard
On Tue 31-10-23 10:02:10, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Jan,
>
> ----- Urspr?ngliche Mail -----
> >> >> 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> >> >
> >> > I haven't seen this commit, I was not Cc'ed.
> >>
> >> Me neither. :-/
> >
> > I'm sorry for that but I took the maintainers entry for BLOCK2MTD which is:
> >
> > BLOCK2MTD DRIVER
> > M: Joern Engel <[email protected]>
> > L: [email protected]
> > S: Maintained
> > F: drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
> >
> > And both Joern and linux-mtd were CCed on the patch. If different people
> > should be CCed these days, please update the entry. Thanks!
>
> Ah, you did a manual lookup?
Yes.
> Because get_maintainer.pl seems to do the right thing:
>
> $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
> Joern Engel <[email protected]> (maintainer:BLOCK2MTD DRIVER)
> Miquel Raynal <[email protected]> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
> Richard Weinberger <[email protected]> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
> Vignesh Raghavendra <[email protected]> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
> [email protected] (open list:BLOCK2MTD DRIVER)
> [email protected] (open list)
Hum, right. I didn't realize there could be multiple entries matching one
file. My mistake.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR
Hi Richard,
[email protected] wrote on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 12:30:40 +0100 (CET):
> Christian,
>
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > Von: "Christian Brauner" <[email protected]>
> >> >> A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to
> >> >> bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> >> >> is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable releases.
> >> >> Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is large.
> >> >> On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree and therefore
> >> >> is not suitable for stable either.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, that's one of the cases where stable rules make life harder for actual
> >> > fixes... You can try pushing ff6abbe85634 to stable even if it is not
> >> > upstream since it fixes a real bug and taking the upstream solution is
> >> > indeed IMO too intrusive. Sometimes stable maintainers accept such fixes.
> >>
> >> Yep, let's try this route. :-)
> >
> > Is there anything for me to do? IOW, do I need to grab that patch or
> > not? :)
>
> No, just keep Jan's patch. (-:
>
> Miquel, we could also keep ff6abbe85634 in the mtd tree and explain Linus the
> conflict, what do you think? That would help with back porting to stable.
It's not relevant if the patch in Brauner's tree is already fixing this
up. Just send the smaller patch to [email protected] asking them to
backport this patch instead of the other one, they are used to this
kind of constraint, no?
Miquèl
----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Miquel Raynal" <[email protected]>
>> Miquel, we could also keep ff6abbe85634 in the mtd tree and explain Linus the
>> conflict, what do you think? That would help with back porting to stable.
>
> It's not relevant if the patch in Brauner's tree is already fixing this
> up. Just send the smaller patch to [email protected] asking them to
> backport this patch instead of the other one, they are used to this
> kind of constraint, no?
I'm just in fear of stable rule #1.
"It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream)."
Anyway, I'll try.
Thanks,
//richard
[email protected] wrote on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:13:53 +0100 (CET):
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > Von: "Miquel Raynal" <[email protected]>
> >> Miquel, we could also keep ff6abbe85634 in the mtd tree and explain Linus the
> >> conflict, what do you think? That would help with back porting to stable.
> >
> > It's not relevant if the patch in Brauner's tree is already fixing this
> > up. Just send the smaller patch to [email protected] asking them to
> > backport this patch instead of the other one, they are used to this
> > kind of constraint, no?
>
> I'm just in fear of stable rule #1.
> "It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream)."
It should be very soon, the merge window is open ;)
Cheers,
Miquèl
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 02:50:06PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>
> [email protected] wrote on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:13:53 +0100 (CET):
>
> > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > > Von: "Miquel Raynal" <[email protected]>
> > >> Miquel, we could also keep ff6abbe85634 in the mtd tree and explain Linus the
> > >> conflict, what do you think? That would help with back porting to stable.
> > >
> > > It's not relevant if the patch in Brauner's tree is already fixing this
> > > up. Just send the smaller patch to [email protected] asking them to
> > > backport this patch instead of the other one, they are used to this
> > > kind of constraint, no?
> >
> > I'm just in fear of stable rule #1.
> > "It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream)."
>
> It should be very soon, the merge window is open ;)
vfs-6.7.super was merged yesterday, if that's what this is about.
Hi Christian,
[email protected] wrote on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 15:25:19 +0100:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 02:50:06PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> >
> > [email protected] wrote on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:13:53 +0100 (CET):
> >
> > > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > > > Von: "Miquel Raynal" <[email protected]>
> > > >> Miquel, we could also keep ff6abbe85634 in the mtd tree and explain Linus the
> > > >> conflict, what do you think? That would help with back porting to stable.
> > > >
> > > > It's not relevant if the patch in Brauner's tree is already fixing this
> > > > up. Just send the smaller patch to [email protected] asking them to
> > > > backport this patch instead of the other one, they are used to this
> > > > kind of constraint, no?
> > >
> > > I'm just in fear of stable rule #1.
> > > "It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream)."
> >
> > It should be very soon, the merge window is open ;)
>
> vfs-6.7.super was merged yesterday, if that's what this is about.
Great, thanks for the confirmation. Then Richard you have your upstream
commit already!
Thanks,
Miquèl
----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Miquel Raynal" <[email protected]>
>> vfs-6.7.super was merged yesterday, if that's what this is about.
>
> Great, thanks for the confirmation. Then Richard you have your upstream
> commit already!
Well, I'd like to back port ff6abbe85634, which is not upstream.
But I'll try to argue that ff6abbe85634 is the super simple variant of 1bcded92d938.
Thanks,
//richard