On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Miklos,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-miklos tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/read_write.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 97e147358bea ("vfs: wrap write f_ops with file_{start,end}_write()")
>
> from the overlayfs tree and various duplicated patches between v4.10-rc1
> and the vfs-miklos tree.
>
That's strange.
overlayfs-next whose head is the for mentioned commit is based on
v4.10-rc6 and has no duplicated patches AFAICS
Perhaps you are referring to the similar named patch:
3616119 vfs: no mnt_want_write_file() in vfs_{copy,clone}_file_range()
Miklos has converted mnt_want_write_file() => sb_start_write() for v4.10-rc1
and my change converts it again sb_start_write() => file_start_write(),
which is mostly a semantic difference, but with some implications.
> Please clean up the vfs-miklos tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the former) 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 then got this build failure from my arm multi_v7_defconfig build:
>
> In file included from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/seq_file.h:10:0,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/pinctrl/consumer.h:17,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/pinctrl/devinfo.h:21,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/device.h:24,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/dma-mapping.h:6,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/arch/arm/kernel/asm-offsets.c:16:
> /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/fs.h:2566:19: error: redefinition of 'do_clone
> _file_range'
> static inline int do_clone_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> ^
> /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/fs.h:1743:19: note: previous definition of 'do_clone_file_range' was here
> static inline int do_clone_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> ^
>
Please note that my patch moves do_clone_file_range() from line 1743
to line 2566,
because it needs to use file_start_write(), which is defined in line 2533.
so perhaps the conflict was not resolved correctly?
> so I decided to just drop the vfs-miklos tree for today.
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
--
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
