Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-175068-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 19:16:31 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@gmail.com>
Cc: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Matthew Mirvish <matthew@mm12.xyz>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the refactor-heap tree with the
 block tree
Message-ID: <buehluxvo234sj7onzl6wwjmuslmnkh7g6vnpru23kpti6qmpp@7nqak2ser7mw>
References: <20240509152745.08af752f@canb.auug.org.au>
 <te64v6zwwor6jkco6uiu2zz7ern6ijhyu5okfvdz3bmj3w5qfp@mx4zdniwymqj>
 <Zj1RzZdtfL7UQax1@visitorckw-System-Product-Name>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zj1RzZdtfL7UQax1@visitorckw-System-Product-Name>

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:44:29AM +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 03:58:57PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 03:27:45PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the refactor-heap tree got conflicts in:
> > > 
> > >   drivers/md/bcache/bset.c
> > >   drivers/md/bcache/bset.h
> > >   drivers/md/bcache/btree.c
> > >   drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >   3a861560ccb3 ("bcache: fix variable length array abuse in btree_iter")
> > > 
> > > from the block tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   afa5721abaaa ("bcache: Remove heap-related macros and switch to generic min_heap")
> > > 
> > > from the refactor-heap tree.
> > > 
> > > Ok, these conflicts are too extensive, so I am dropping the refactor-heap
> > > tree for today.  I suggest you all get together and sort something out.
> > 
> > Coli and Kuan, you guys will need to get this sorted out quick if we
> > want refactor-heap to make the merge window
> 
> Hi Coli and Kent,
> 
> If I understand correctly, the reported bug is because we attempted to
> point (heap)->data to a dynamically allocated memory , but at that time
> (heap)->data was not a regular pointer but a fixed size array with a
> length of MAX_BSETS.
> 
> In my refactor heap patch series, I introduced a preallocated array and
> decided in min_heap_init() whether the data pointer should point to an
> incoming pointer or to the preallocated array. Therefore, I am
> wondering if my patch might have unintentionally fixed this bug?
> 
> I am unsure how to reproduce the reported issue. Could you assist me in
> verifying whether my assumption is correct?

This is a merge conflict, not a runtime. Can you rebase onto Coli's
tree? We'll have to retest.