Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got conflicts in: fs/btrfs/extent_io.c fs/btrfs/inode.c between commit: 01a1400f8545 ("btrfs: only check bio size to see if a repair bio should have the failfast flag") from the btrfs-kdave tree and commit: 70fd76140a6c ("block,fs: use REQ_* flags directly") from the block tree. 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. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell diff --cc fs/btrfs/extent_io.c index 5694d60adad9,1e67723c27a1..000000000000 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c @@@ -2403,10 -2403,8 +2403,8 @@@ static int bio_readpage_error(struct bi return -EIO; } - if (failed_bio->bi_vcnt > 1) + if (failed_bio->bi_iter.bi_size > BTRFS_I(inode)->root->sectorsize) - read_mode = READ_SYNC | REQ_FAILFAST_DEV; - else - read_mode = READ_SYNC; + read_mode |= REQ_FAILFAST_DEV; phy_offset >>= inode->i_sb->s_blocksize_bits; bio = btrfs_create_repair_bio(inode, failed_bio, failrec, page, diff --cc fs/btrfs/inode.c index 7e8603c74f43,a4c879671b9d..000000000000 --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c @@@ -7924,10 -7933,10 +7924,8 @@@ static int dio_read_error(struct inode return -EIO; } - if ((failed_bio->bi_vcnt > 1) - || (failed_bio->bi_io_vec->bv_len - > BTRFS_I(inode)->root->sectorsize)) + if (failed_bio->bi_iter.bi_size > BTRFS_I(inode)->root->sectorsize) - read_mode = READ_SYNC | REQ_FAILFAST_DEV; - else - read_mode = READ_SYNC; + read_mode |= REQ_FAILFAST_DEV; isector = start - btrfs_io_bio(failed_bio)->logical; isector >>= inode->i_sb->s_blocksize_bits; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html