Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-178240-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 11:32:59 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
 <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
 <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs tree
Message-ID: <20240514113259.7396a7d4@canb.auug.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20240510123419.42f727c1@canb.auug.org.au>
References: <20240510123419.42f727c1@canb.auug.org.au>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/J=sXTYUDcwt/uABqN174z=X";
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256

--Sig_/J=sXTYUDcwt/uABqN174z=X
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,

On Fri, 10 May 2024 12:34:19 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> =
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
>=20
>   block/blk-core.c
>=20
> between commit:
>=20
>   3f9b8fb46e5d ("Use bdev_is_paritition() instead of open-coding it")
>=20
> from the vfs tree and commit:
>=20
>   99dc422335d8 ("block: support to account io_ticks precisely")
>=20
> from the block tree.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>=20
> diff --cc block/blk-core.c
> index a4035dc7640d,01186333c88e..000000000000
> --- a/block/blk-core.c
> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> @@@ -990,11 -986,12 +989,12 @@@ void update_io_ticks(struct block_devic
>   	unsigned long stamp;
>   again:
>   	stamp =3D READ_ONCE(part->bd_stamp);
> - 	if (unlikely(time_after(now, stamp))) {
> - 		if (likely(try_cmpxchg(&part->bd_stamp, &stamp, now)))
> - 			__part_stat_add(part, io_ticks, end ? now - stamp : 1);
> - 	}
> + 	if (unlikely(time_after(now, stamp)) &&
> + 	    likely(try_cmpxchg(&part->bd_stamp, &stamp, now)) &&
> + 	    (end || part_in_flight(part)))
> + 		__part_stat_add(part, io_ticks, now - stamp);
> +=20
>  -	if (part->bd_partno) {
>  +	if (bdev_is_partition(part)) {
>   		part =3D bdev_whole(part);
>   		goto again;
>   	}

This is now a conflict between the vfs tree and Linus' tree.

--=20
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

--Sig_/J=sXTYUDcwt/uABqN174z=X
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAmZCv0sACgkQAVBC80lX
0GzWzQf/fB8NEqFinuZD/N/+bCx9gnWArQPQW4kWoaQ8N9sjmdHbcqxv3lKbWzoa
HQO20h53YA1JjrEk8WRQCMyOyNNrYsJJHaFUHqUl1hyPzHoLO8jJIcB8/egBIuCj
G0aZ3qyHf/PhCjo64bJs8IX3n/G7TFosEMcsdTZ+gzXacsx2ICJhRiSm+/1gvhiu
0Rextv7ZK7JZf7f/ptuUzLZNrPMijNDPwvJtEaPOcRPsp+hsfwwNnOihvLPfO99U
8rqvlzSlVwbD9Mf6VH48MADxrB0AwfOYCWYkWapwlwCwuKFxwKeAxerhyVYbZQHj
J00JWhG0uH+Hdq6tuLtQV8EtBewXoQ==
=FWmv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/J=sXTYUDcwt/uABqN174z=X--