MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230220152933.1ab8fa4a@canb.auug.org.au> <Y/N8hVWeR3AjssUC@casper.infradead.org>
 <20230220190157.3b43b9a7@canb.auug.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20230220190157.3b43b9a7@canb.auug.org.au>
From:   Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Feb 2023 15:00:50 -0600
Message-ID: <CAH2r5ms6J_hWmLaLA=pCQz1oez3bO07ahvr6mdCbYzQHrNVNkA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mm-stable tree with the cifs tree
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        CIFS <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>,
        "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 2:55 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Matthew,
>
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 13:58:29 +0000 Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 03:29:33PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the mm-stable tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > >   fs/cifs/file.c
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > >   c8859bc0c129 ("cifs: Remove unused code")
> > >
> > > from the cifs tree and commits:
> > >
> > >   4cda80f3a7a5 ("cifs: convert wdata_alloc_and_fillpages() to use filemap_get_folios_tag()")
> > >   d585bdbeb79a ("fs: convert writepage_t callback to pass a folio")
> > >
> > > from the mm-stable tree.
> > >
> > > This is a real mess :-(
> >
> > Doesn't look too bad to me.  Dave's commit is just removing the
> > functions, so it doesn't matter how they're being changed.
>
> The problem I see is that an earlier commit in the cifs tree moves the
> use of find_get_pages_range_tag() to another function and 4cda80f3a7a5
> then removes find_get_pages_range_tag().
>
> > The real question in my mind is why for-next is being updated two days
> > before the merge window with new patches.  What's the point in -next
> > if patches are being added at this late point?
>
> Indeed :-(

I don't think it was so much that they were added late (most were
reviewed over multiple week period) - just moved trees to make it
easier a week ago.  The changes David etc. have been making recently
to the series seemed fairly small.  And I am hoping that his series
allows removal of more dead code as well. Also FYI Paulo caught a
minor bug in one of Dave's patches while testing today, and I noticed
a merge conflict with a small unrelated patch that went into
mm/filemap.c for rc8 so I am rebasing my cifs-2.6.git for-next on 6.2
now (to avoid that merge conflict) and will update later this
afternoon with the trivial fix for the problem Paulo pointed out.


-- 
Thanks,

Steve