On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 04:04:07PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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,
Ah, I see the conflicting patch in -next. It's hch's
mm: return an ERR_PTR from __filemap_get_folio
@@ -141,18 +141,18 @@ mext_folio_double_lock(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2,
flags = memalloc_nofs_save();
folio[0] = __filemap_get_folio(mapping[0], index1, fgp_flags,
mapping_gfp_mask(mapping[0]));
- if (!folio[0]) {
+ if (IS_ERR(folio[0])) {
memalloc_nofs_restore(flags);
- return -ENOMEM;
+ return PTR_ERR(folio[0]);
This is a syntactic, not semantic conflict. I can fix that up, but of
course it will be a conflict for Linus to resolve.
