Hi Christoph,
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:47:53 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:21:48PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the xfs tree got a conflict in
> > fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c between commit 7eaceaccab5f ("block: remove
> > per-queue plugging") from Linus' tree and commit 0e6e847ffe37 ("xfs: stop
> > using the page cache to back the buffer cache") from the xfs tree.
> >
> > I assume that these changes (on both sides) were discussed somewhere, but
> > maybe not clearly enough?
> >
> > I have no idea how to fix this, so I tried to just use the xfs tree
> > version for today. That failed like this:
> >
> > fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c: In function 'xfs_buf_lock':
> > fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c:923: error: implicit declaration of function 'blk_run_backing_dev'
> >
> > So I used the xfs tree from next-20110325 for today.
>
> What XFS does is to replace blk_run_address_space, which was a wrapper
> around blk_run_backing_dev with a direct call to blk_run_backing_dev,
> as there change means we don't have the address_space around anymore.
>
> Jens' tree removes both these functions, and introduces blk_flush_plug
> as a sort-of replacement. Sticking to the variant from Jens' tree / mainline
> with blk_flush_plug is the correct thing here for this case.
So does that mean that the whole xfs tree commit can be removed/ignored?
That is a bit of a pain to do in a merge (especially considering that
there is another commit in the xfs tree that changes that file. If the
whole commit is no longer needed, maybe it could be dropped from the xfs
tree or reverted.
> Where there more conflicts than just this?
No, the only conflicts (I am pretty sure) were on the lines with the
changed calls. There was, of course, quite a few other changes in that
commit in the xfs tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgp8dVt3Joxxy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
