Hi all,
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 09:58:25 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs-kdave tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/btrfs/inode.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 58efbc9f5463 ("Btrfs: fix blk_status_t/errno confusion")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
> e6961cac730f ("btrfs: Move skip checksum check from btrfs_submit_direct to __btrfs_submit_dio_bio")
>
> 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 24bcd5cd9cf2,d184a46e46c4..000000000000
> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> @@@ -7991,10 -8080,9 +8081,10 @@@ static blk_status_t dio_read_error(stru
> struct extent_io_tree *failure_tree = &BTRFS_I(inode)->io_failure_tree;
> struct bio *bio;
> int isector;
> - int read_mode = 0;
> + unsigned int read_mode = 0;
> int segs;
> int ret;
> + blk_status_t status;
>
> BUG_ON(bio_op(failed_bio) == REQ_OP_WRITE);
>
> @@@ -8021,11 -8109,11 +8111,11 @@@
> bio_set_op_attrs(bio, REQ_OP_READ, read_mode);
>
> btrfs_debug(BTRFS_I(inode)->root->fs_info,
> - "Repair DIO Read Error: submitting new dio read[%#x] to this_mirror=%d, in_validation=%d\n",
> + "repair DIO read error: submitting new dio read[%#x] to this_mirror=%d, in_validation=%d",
> read_mode, failrec->this_mirror, failrec->in_validation);
>
> - ret = submit_dio_repair_bio(inode, bio, failrec->this_mirror);
> - if (ret) {
> + status = submit_dio_repair_bio(inode, bio, failrec->this_mirror);
> + if (status) {
> free_io_failure(failure_tree, io_tree, failrec);
> bio_put(bio);
> }
> @@@ -8426,9 -8513,8 +8516,9 @@@ static inline blk_status_t btrfs_lookup
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static inline int __btrfs_submit_dio_bio(struct bio *bio, struct inode *inode,
> - u64 file_offset, int async_submit)
> +static inline blk_status_t
> +__btrfs_submit_dio_bio(struct bio *bio, struct inode *inode, u64 file_offset,
> - int skip_sum, int async_submit)
> ++ int async_submit)
> {
> struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = btrfs_sb(inode->i_sb);
> struct btrfs_dio_private *dip = bio->bi_private;
> @@@ -8541,9 -8625,9 +8630,9 @@@ static int btrfs_submit_direct_hook(str
> */
> atomic_inc(&dip->pending_bios);
>
> - status = __btrfs_submit_dio_bio(bio, inode, file_offset, skip_sum,
> - ret = __btrfs_submit_dio_bio(bio, inode, file_offset,
> - async_submit);
> - if (ret) {
> ++ status = __btrfs_submit_dio_bio(bio, inode, file_offset,
> + async_submit);
> + if (status) {
> bio_put(bio);
> atomic_dec(&dip->pending_bios);
> goto out_err;
> @@@ -8561,9 -8645,8 +8650,8 @@@
> } while (submit_len > 0);
>
> submit:
> - status = __btrfs_submit_dio_bio(bio, inode, file_offset, skip_sum,
> - async_submit);
> - ret = __btrfs_submit_dio_bio(bio, inode, file_offset, async_submit);
> - if (!ret)
> ++ status = __btrfs_submit_dio_bio(bio, inode, file_offset, async_submit);
> + if (!status)
> return 0;
>
> bio_put(bio);
Just a reminder that this conflict still exists.
--
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
