Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
fs/buffer.c
between commits:
2c68861ed127 ("buffer: return bool from grow_dev_folio()")
5334c6480adb ("buffer: calculate block number inside folio_init_buffers()")
from the mm tree and commit:
488e2eea5100 ("fs: Rename mapping private members")
from the vfs-brauner 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/buffer.c
index 4eb44ccdc6be,5ffc44ab4854..000000000000
--- a/fs/buffer.c
+++ b/fs/buffer.c
@@@ -1067,14 -1064,17 +1067,14 @@@ static bool grow_dev_folio(struct block
* lock to be atomic wrt __find_get_block(), which does not
* run under the folio lock.
*/
- spin_lock(&inode->i_mapping->private_lock);
+ spin_lock(&inode->i_mapping->i_private_lock);
link_dev_buffers(folio, bh);
- end_block = folio_init_buffers(folio, bdev,
- (sector_t)index << sizebits, size);
+ end_block = folio_init_buffers(folio, bdev, size);
- spin_unlock(&inode->i_mapping->private_lock);
+ spin_unlock(&inode->i_mapping->i_private_lock);
-done:
- ret = (block < end_block) ? 1 : -ENXIO;
-failed:
+unlock:
folio_unlock(folio);
folio_put(folio);
- return ret;
+ return block < end_block;
}
/*
Hi all,
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 10:31:19 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/buffer.c
>
> between commits:
>
> 2c68861ed127 ("buffer: return bool from grow_dev_folio()")
> 5334c6480adb ("buffer: calculate block number inside folio_init_buffers()")
>
> from the mm tree and commit:
>
> 488e2eea5100 ("fs: Rename mapping private members")
>
> from the vfs-brauner 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/buffer.c
> index 4eb44ccdc6be,5ffc44ab4854..000000000000
> --- a/fs/buffer.c
> +++ b/fs/buffer.c
> @@@ -1067,14 -1064,17 +1067,14 @@@ static bool grow_dev_folio(struct block
> * lock to be atomic wrt __find_get_block(), which does not
> * run under the folio lock.
> */
> - spin_lock(&inode->i_mapping->private_lock);
> + spin_lock(&inode->i_mapping->i_private_lock);
> link_dev_buffers(folio, bh);
> - end_block = folio_init_buffers(folio, bdev,
> - (sector_t)index << sizebits, size);
> + end_block = folio_init_buffers(folio, bdev, size);
> - spin_unlock(&inode->i_mapping->private_lock);
> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_mapping->i_private_lock);
> -done:
> - ret = (block < end_block) ? 1 : -ENXIO;
> -failed:
> +unlock:
> folio_unlock(folio);
> folio_put(folio);
> - return ret;
> + return block < end_block;
> }
>
> /*
This is now a conflict between the mm tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell