Hi David,
Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs-kdave tree got a conflict in:
fs/btrfs/inode.c
between commit:
70fd76140a6c ("block,fs: use REQ_* flags directly")
from Linus' tree and commit:
da17066c4047 ("btrfs: pull node/sector/stripe sizes out of root and into fs_info")
from the btrfs-kdave 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/inode.c
index a4c879671b9d,b2a577cf001f..000000000000
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@@ -7935,8 -7941,10 +7941,8 @@@ static int dio_read_error(struct inode
if ((failed_bio->bi_vcnt > 1)
|| (failed_bio->bi_io_vec->bv_len
- > BTRFS_I(inode)->root->sectorsize))
+ > btrfs_inode_sectorsize(inode)))
- 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
