Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
fs/ext4/file.c
between commit:
a0c7cce824a5 ("ext4: set FMODE_CAN_ODIRECT instead of a dummy direct_IO method")
from the ext4 tree and commit:
210a03c9d51a ("fs: claw back a few FMODE_* bits")
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/ext4/file.c
index 77529c655f95,28c51b0cc4db..000000000000
--- a/fs/ext4/file.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/file.c
@@@ -884,8 -885,7 +884,7 @@@ static int ext4_file_open(struct inode
return ret;
}
- filp->f_mode |= FMODE_NOWAIT | FMODE_BUF_RASYNC |
- FMODE_DIO_PARALLEL_WRITE | FMODE_CAN_ODIRECT;
- filp->f_mode |= FMODE_NOWAIT;
++ filp->f_mode |= FMODE_NOWAIT | FMODE_CAN_ODIRECT;
return dquot_file_open(inode, filp);
}
On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 10:34:36AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/ext4/file.c
>
> between commit:
>
> a0c7cce824a5 ("ext4: set FMODE_CAN_ODIRECT instead of a dummy direct_IO method")
>
> from the ext4 tree and commit:
>
> 210a03c9d51a ("fs: claw back a few FMODE_* bits")
>
> from the vfs-brauner tree.
Ted, if you still can maybe just drop the ext4 patch for now? I can
redo it for next merge window with the moved flag.
Hi Christoph,
On Wed, 8 May 2024 08:47:00 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 10:34:36AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > fs/ext4/file.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > a0c7cce824a5 ("ext4: set FMODE_CAN_ODIRECT instead of a dummy direct_IO method")
> >
> > from the ext4 tree and commit:
> >
> > 210a03c9d51a ("fs: claw back a few FMODE_* bits")
> >
> > from the vfs-brauner tree.
>
> Ted, if you still can maybe just drop the ext4 patch for now? I can
> redo it for next merge window with the moved flag.
If the resolution I did is fine, I am sure Linus will cope (but worth
mentioning it to him in the pull request). Its a simple enough conflict.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 04:59:53PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2024 08:47:00 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Ted, if you still can maybe just drop the ext4 patch for now? I can
> > redo it for next merge window with the moved flag.
>
> If the resolution I did is fine, I am sure Linus will cope (but worth
> mentioning it to him in the pull request). Its a simple enough conflict.
I agree... but at the same time, the patch in question is a cleanup
and there's not a lot of downside in dropping this for a cycle.
Cristoph, is that right? Will not taking this cleanup block anything
that you were hoping to land this cycle?
I'm fine either way with either asking Linus to fix up the merge, or
dropping it and picking it up later. In fact, I'd be fine just simply
landing this post -rc1.
So what do people think? Again, I don't have strong opinions one way
or another.
- Ted