Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
fs/f2fs/super.c
between commit:
5fa6a97d2784 ("f2fs: introduce SEGS_TO_BLKS/BLKS_TO_SEGS for cleanup")
from the f2fs tree and commit:
512383ae4910 ("f2fs: port block device access to files")
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/f2fs/super.c
index 09ffdd554f9c,09e82624eff5..000000000000
--- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
@@@ -4206,9 -4265,9 +4206,9 @@@ static int f2fs_scan_devices(struct f2f
} else {
FDEV(i).start_blk = FDEV(i - 1).end_blk + 1;
FDEV(i).end_blk = FDEV(i).start_blk +
- (FDEV(i).total_segments <<
- sbi->log_blocks_per_seg) - 1;
+ SEGS_TO_BLKS(sbi,
+ FDEV(i).total_segments) - 1;
- FDEV(i).bdev_handle = bdev_open_by_path(
+ FDEV(i).bdev_file = bdev_file_open_by_path(
FDEV(i).path, mode, sbi->sb, NULL);
}
}
On 02/29, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/f2fs/super.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 5fa6a97d2784 ("f2fs: introduce SEGS_TO_BLKS/BLKS_TO_SEGS for cleanup")
fyi; I dropped the above commit in -dev.
>
> from the f2fs tree and commit:
>
> 512383ae4910 ("f2fs: port block device access to files")
>
> 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/f2fs/super.c
> index 09ffdd554f9c,09e82624eff5..000000000000
> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> @@@ -4206,9 -4265,9 +4206,9 @@@ static int f2fs_scan_devices(struct f2f
> } else {
> FDEV(i).start_blk = FDEV(i - 1).end_blk + 1;
> FDEV(i).end_blk = FDEV(i).start_blk +
> - (FDEV(i).total_segments <<
> - sbi->log_blocks_per_seg) - 1;
> + SEGS_TO_BLKS(sbi,
> + FDEV(i).total_segments) - 1;
> - FDEV(i).bdev_handle = bdev_open_by_path(
> + FDEV(i).bdev_file = bdev_file_open_by_path(
> FDEV(i).path, mode, sbi->sb, NULL);
> }
> }
Hi Jaegeuk,
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:13:28 -0800 Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 02/29, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > fs/f2fs/super.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 5fa6a97d2784 ("f2fs: introduce SEGS_TO_BLKS/BLKS_TO_SEGS for cleanup")
>
> fyi; I dropped the above commit in -dev.
And it seems to have come back as commit
45809cd3bdac ("f2fs: introduce SEGS_TO_BLKS/BLKS_TO_SEGS for cleanup")
(which is fine, but the conflict has returned).
> > from the f2fs tree and commit:
> >
> > 512383ae4910 ("f2fs: port block device access to files")
> >
> > 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/f2fs/super.c
> > index 09ffdd554f9c,09e82624eff5..000000000000
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > @@@ -4206,9 -4265,9 +4206,9 @@@ static int f2fs_scan_devices(struct f2f
> > } else {
> > FDEV(i).start_blk = FDEV(i - 1).end_blk + 1;
> > FDEV(i).end_blk = FDEV(i).start_blk +
> > - (FDEV(i).total_segments <<
> > - sbi->log_blocks_per_seg) - 1;
> > + SEGS_TO_BLKS(sbi,
> > + FDEV(i).total_segments) - 1;
> > - FDEV(i).bdev_handle = bdev_open_by_path(
> > + FDEV(i).bdev_file = bdev_file_open_by_path(
> > FDEV(i).path, mode, sbi->sb, NULL);
> > }
> > }
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On 03/05, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:13:28 -0800 Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On 02/29, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > fs/f2fs/super.c
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > > 5fa6a97d2784 ("f2fs: introduce SEGS_TO_BLKS/BLKS_TO_SEGS for cleanup")
> >
> > fyi; I dropped the above commit in -dev.
>
> And it seems to have come back as commit
>
> 45809cd3bdac ("f2fs: introduce SEGS_TO_BLKS/BLKS_TO_SEGS for cleanup")
>
> (which is fine, but the conflict has returned).
Yeah.. :P
>
> > > from the f2fs tree and commit:
> > >
> > > 512383ae4910 ("f2fs: port block device access to files")
> > >
> > > 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/f2fs/super.c
> > > index 09ffdd554f9c,09e82624eff5..000000000000
> > > --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > > @@@ -4206,9 -4265,9 +4206,9 @@@ static int f2fs_scan_devices(struct f2f
> > > } else {
> > > FDEV(i).start_blk = FDEV(i - 1).end_blk + 1;
> > > FDEV(i).end_blk = FDEV(i).start_blk +
> > > - (FDEV(i).total_segments <<
> > > - sbi->log_blocks_per_seg) - 1;
> > > + SEGS_TO_BLKS(sbi,
> > > + FDEV(i).total_segments) - 1;
> > > - FDEV(i).bdev_handle = bdev_open_by_path(
> > > + FDEV(i).bdev_file = bdev_file_open_by_path(
> > > FDEV(i).path, mode, sbi->sb, NULL);
> > > }
> > > }
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
Hi all,
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:41:40 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/f2fs/super.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 5fa6a97d2784 ("f2fs: introduce SEGS_TO_BLKS/BLKS_TO_SEGS for cleanup")
>
> from the f2fs tree and commit:
>
> 512383ae4910 ("f2fs: port block device access to files")
>
> 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.
>
> diff --cc fs/f2fs/super.c
> index 09ffdd554f9c,09e82624eff5..000000000000
> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> @@@ -4206,9 -4265,9 +4206,9 @@@ static int f2fs_scan_devices(struct f2f
> } else {
> FDEV(i).start_blk = FDEV(i - 1).end_blk + 1;
> FDEV(i).end_blk = FDEV(i).start_blk +
> - (FDEV(i).total_segments <<
> - sbi->log_blocks_per_seg) - 1;
> + SEGS_TO_BLKS(sbi,
> + FDEV(i).total_segments) - 1;
> - FDEV(i).bdev_handle = bdev_open_by_path(
> + FDEV(i).bdev_file = bdev_file_open_by_path(
> FDEV(i).path, mode, sbi->sb, NULL);
> }
> }
This is now a conflict between the f2fs tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell