Received: by 2002:a25:e74b:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id e72csp1690240ybh; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 20:55:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzE/FD8q4tYzGtOlcf4NZ63RiWFrAs3ePa/biHVCuG+oh1Ti2YeAxIgEARMp9qzNKXiR8az X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:337:: with SMTP id q23mr7587200edw.63.1594958111906; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 20:55:11 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1594958111; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=TCOrNb2dHMPfw4jQMyXcD1pLESHqiHb/iMovlGDHjsHpLRDbNztBtcaw6rtC7EJd+J rv8gKQEk67WyCwDHX/YuE3+jSOSsASSjgcHO6GNz7uRgKgBKkGoRLYioUvcNy/kUgBz+ Gp4sMVHh3QSQVA4V/o2PyjaKsWJETxFdiiFiPKkyjrFNocjW0esS23BRrUm7GXMpS+4P igsbG+0XFE0iYGkBLHHrZ/AuR5JWRSAJ3OsAKXj95WHiyNQs5Nbz9MFGxF2mJOA9i4yq w6lGHHxTsRRmA5QuCuvtIxjHXwuRsxGOZ79QIxjMrggcq4MX44S0HixTr1GUGxH16xOD XjHw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to :subject; bh=Ikno/i+jFkL/1myPj2k7Q21WGyMbrYPkNp7afYLtIDs=; b=1GUSYTQS6DN8DBcfWC67sbtISpGog6XmVutWd2pFC5Wp7jGIRufciJN7du7uKK0PQ9 960AcVUEoomZ9JIlvqFtXEa30QjCp6PBosJUlLRsSqVjoH5WyFModjcjBTjPTEucK7uz S2PvlBn9GkyUPhmH4jYBEh6wMeMjKHa211t5+MNIqL/5bhB2BEZhylBUl9j5uU3f1ww8 5QFJ1sLlifKMrHkKpDM5fZ/VAynCATNNd5sitEYE0NNKAPyg6D973h1vjiccMvabmYjM c3TzJHyyGaUhgKRMcPkdqNT5itoVp6XvjZFoy+FDjFkFHCcBwa5ioQ5T37EthKuQIVTr uxlQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id k23si4526476eds.14.2020.07.16.20.54.49; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 20:55:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727834AbgGQDvc (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 23:51:32 -0400 Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.191]:7776 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726530AbgGQDvc (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 23:51:32 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS408-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 0B92718BA189383AF769; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:51:30 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.174.179.91) by DGGEMS408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.208) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.487.0; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:51:29 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] rsxx: Convert to DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE To: Jens Axboe , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Joshua Morris , Philip Kelleher CC: , References: <20200716090432.13691-1-miaoqinglang@huawei.com> <87a5f046-e77b-af25-6656-c8b075a16edf@kernel.dk> From: miaoqinglang Message-ID: <40b2a0b4-08ed-e4df-a7a1-efbf3e140f55@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:51:28 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87a5f046-e77b-af25-6656-c8b075a16edf@kernel.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.179.91] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 在 2020/7/17 10:16, Jens Axboe 写道: > On 7/16/20 7:37 PM, miaoqinglang wrote: >> >> 在 2020/7/16 23:45, Jens Axboe 写道: >>> On 7/16/20 3:04 AM, Qinglang Miao wrote: >>>> From: Liu Shixin >>>> >>>> Use DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE macro to simplify the code. >>> None of these apply against the 5.9 block tree, looks like some >>> read -> read_iter conversion has happened in another branch that >>> I'm not privy to. >> >> Hi Jens, >> >> Sorry I didn't mention it in commit log, but this patch is based >> on linux-next where commit <4d4901c6d7> has switched over direct >> seq_read method calls to seq_read_iter, this is why there's conflict in >> your apply. >> >> Do you think I should send a new patch based on 5.8rc? > > That'll just create a needless conflict. But I don't even know what tree > is carrying the patch that changes it to use seq_read_iter, so hard to > make other suggestions. This patch is against linux-next, which is ahead of both linux-block and mainline tree. Here's the interlinkage: https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next/+/4d4901c6d748efab8aab6e7d2405dadaed0bea50](javascript:;) or you can find the commit <4d4901c6d7> which changes seq_read to seq_read_iter with the -next tag, in fact, it's just a simple script: sed -i -e 's/\.read\(\s*=\s*\)seq_read/\.read_iter\1seq_read_iter/g' By the way, there won't be needless confict because seq_read in both file and macro are switched to seq_read_iter together. > > Alternatively, I can hang on to them until the other change hits > mainline, and then queue them up after that. > That looks good to me. Let me know if patch based on 5.8rc is needed. Thanks. Qinglang .