On 11/16/2016 07:01 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
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.
I don't have the full context here, but this:
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,
doesn't look correct, if bio_readpage_error() is called from the
->bi_end_io() handler. bi_size is generally zeroed at that time.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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
