On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 10:56:19AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 06:01:01PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > This particular combination of flags is used by most filesystems
> > in their ->write_begin method, although it does find use in a
> > few other places. Before folios, it warranted its own function
> > (grab_cache_page_write_begin()), but I think that just having specialised
> > flags is enough. It certainly helps the few places that have been
> > converted from grab_cache_page_write_begin() to __filemap_get_folio().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hey Willy,
>
> Which commit/branch did you base this patch series on? This commit
next-20230321. I haven't noticed any conflicts while rebasing to
next-20230404.
> conflict with Vishal Moola's e8dfc854eef2 ("ext4: convert
> mext_page_double_lock() to mext_folio_double_lock()") which landed in
> v6.3-rc1.
I'm not sure why you're seeing that conflict. The context lines look
like it's applied after mext_folio_double_lock, eg:
@@ -126,7 +126,6 @@ mext_folio_double_lock(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2,
> I'm guessing what happened is that you based it on the ext4 dev branch
> that I used when I sent the pull request to Linus, before I moved the
> dev branch's origin to be on v6.3-rc3. And since Vishal's patches
> went in via the mm tree, and not the ext4 tree, we have conflicts with
> the ext4 folio work done by some of Vishal's work in the last merge
> window.
>
> Sorry, I should have noticed this problem earlier (we had some painful
> merge conflicts due to the ext4 changes in the mm tree) so I should
> have realized this would continue to bite us this cycle. :-/
>
> I hate to do this, but would you mind rebasing this on the current
> ext4 dev branch. Thanks, and again, sorry for not catching this
> sooner.
>
> - Ted
