Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
block/blk.h
between commits:
19db932fd2b0 ("bdev: make bdev_{release, open_by_dev}() private to block layer")
09f8289e1b74 ("bdev: make struct bdev_handle private to the block layer")
d75140abba91 ("bdev: remove bdev pointer from struct bdev_handle")
from the vfs-brauner tree and commits:
c4e47bbb00da ("block: move cgroup time handling code into blk.h")
08420cf70cfb ("block: add blk_time_get_ns() and blk_time_get() helpers")
da4c8c3d0975 ("block: cache current nsec time in struct blk_plug")
06b23f92af87 ("block: update cached timestamp post schedule/preemption")
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 block/blk.h
index f02b25f22e8b,913c93838a01..000000000000
--- a/block/blk.h
+++ b/block/blk.h
@@@ -516,8 -517,70 +517,75 @@@ static inline int req_ref_read(struct r
return atomic_read(&req->ref);
}
+void bdev_release(struct file *bdev_file);
+int bdev_open(struct block_device *bdev, blk_mode_t mode, void *holder,
+ const struct blk_holder_ops *hops, struct file *bdev_file);
+int bdev_permission(dev_t dev, blk_mode_t mode, void *holder);
++
+ static inline u64 blk_time_get_ns(void)
+ {
+ struct blk_plug *plug = current->plug;
+
+ if (!plug)
+ return ktime_get_ns();
+
+ /*
+ * 0 could very well be a valid time, but rather than flag "this is
+ * a valid timestamp" separately, just accept that we'll do an extra
+ * ktime_get_ns() if we just happen to get 0 as the current time.
+ */
+ if (!plug->cur_ktime) {
+ plug->cur_ktime = ktime_get_ns();
+ current->flags |= PF_BLOCK_TS;
+ }
+ return plug->cur_ktime;
+ }
+
+ static inline ktime_t blk_time_get(void)
+ {
+ return ns_to_ktime(blk_time_get_ns());
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * From most significant bit:
+ * 1 bit: reserved for other usage, see below
+ * 12 bits: original size of bio
+ * 51 bits: issue time of bio
+ */
+ #define BIO_ISSUE_RES_BITS 1
+ #define BIO_ISSUE_SIZE_BITS 12
+ #define BIO_ISSUE_RES_SHIFT (64 - BIO_ISSUE_RES_BITS)
+ #define BIO_ISSUE_SIZE_SHIFT (BIO_ISSUE_RES_SHIFT - BIO_ISSUE_SIZE_BITS)
+ #define BIO_ISSUE_TIME_MASK ((1ULL << BIO_ISSUE_SIZE_SHIFT) - 1)
+ #define BIO_ISSUE_SIZE_MASK \
+ (((1ULL << BIO_ISSUE_SIZE_BITS) - 1) << BIO_ISSUE_SIZE_SHIFT)
+ #define BIO_ISSUE_RES_MASK (~((1ULL << BIO_ISSUE_RES_SHIFT) - 1))
+
+ /* Reserved bit for blk-throtl */
+ #define BIO_ISSUE_THROTL_SKIP_LATENCY (1ULL << 63)
+
+ static inline u64 __bio_issue_time(u64 time)
+ {
+ return time & BIO_ISSUE_TIME_MASK;
+ }
+
+ static inline u64 bio_issue_time(struct bio_issue *issue)
+ {
+ return __bio_issue_time(issue->value);
+ }
+
+ static inline sector_t bio_issue_size(struct bio_issue *issue)
+ {
+ return ((issue->value & BIO_ISSUE_SIZE_MASK) >> BIO_ISSUE_SIZE_SHIFT);
+ }
+
+ static inline void bio_issue_init(struct bio_issue *issue,
+ sector_t size)
+ {
+ size &= (1ULL << BIO_ISSUE_SIZE_BITS) - 1;
+ issue->value = ((issue->value & BIO_ISSUE_RES_MASK) |
+ (blk_time_get_ns() & BIO_ISSUE_TIME_MASK) |
+ ((u64)size << BIO_ISSUE_SIZE_SHIFT));
+ }
+
#endif /* BLK_INTERNAL_H */
On 2/5/24 6:48 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
>
> block/blk.h
>
> between commits:
>
> 19db932fd2b0 ("bdev: make bdev_{release, open_by_dev}() private to block layer")
> 09f8289e1b74 ("bdev: make struct bdev_handle private to the block layer")
> d75140abba91 ("bdev: remove bdev pointer from struct bdev_handle")
>
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commits:
>
> c4e47bbb00da ("block: move cgroup time handling code into blk.h")
> 08420cf70cfb ("block: add blk_time_get_ns() and blk_time_get() helpers")
> da4c8c3d0975 ("block: cache current nsec time in struct blk_plug")
> 06b23f92af87 ("block: update cached timestamp post schedule/preemption")
>
> 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.
That's a lot of conflicts. Christian, we really should separate some of
these so we can have the shared bits in a shared branch.
--
Jens Axboe
On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 09:37:33AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/5/24 6:48 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > block/blk.h
> >
> > between commits:
> >
> > 19db932fd2b0 ("bdev: make bdev_{release, open_by_dev}() private to block layer")
> > 09f8289e1b74 ("bdev: make struct bdev_handle private to the block layer")
> > d75140abba91 ("bdev: remove bdev pointer from struct bdev_handle")
> >
> > from the vfs-brauner tree and commits:
> >
> > c4e47bbb00da ("block: move cgroup time handling code into blk.h")
> > 08420cf70cfb ("block: add blk_time_get_ns() and blk_time_get() helpers")
> > da4c8c3d0975 ("block: cache current nsec time in struct blk_plug")
> > 06b23f92af87 ("block: update cached timestamp post schedule/preemption")
> >
> > 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.
>
> That's a lot of conflicts. Christian, we really should separate some of
> these so we can have the shared bits in a shared branch.
Yes, happy to do that. Let's quickly sync later today when you're up?