On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 08:17:36PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 1/15/19 8:13 PM, Ming Lei wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 07:55:39PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 1/15/19 7:25 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: > >>> > >>> fs/ext4/readpage.c > >>> > >>> between commit: > >>> > >>> acc9eb0a6073 ("ext4: add fs-verity read support") > >>> > >>> from the fscrypt tree and commit: > >>> > >>> eb754eb2a953 ("block: allow bio_for_each_segment_all() to iterate over multi-page bvec") > >>> > >>> from the block tree. > >>> > >>> I fixed it up (see below - the former moved the code modified by the > >>> latter) 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. > >> > >> Ming, I'm pulling this, I thought we agreed none of these bullshit > >> renames? The fact that a patch looks like this: > >> > >> - for_each_bvec(bv, (it)->bvecs, __cur_iter, __cur_iter) \ > >> + for_each_segment(bv, (it)->bvecs, __cur_iter, __cur_iter) \ > >> > >> is SUPER annoying and does NOTHING but to cause merge conflicts. > >> > >> Resend it without that. > > > > We need to differentiate 'segment' with 'bvec' in bvec helpers, which is > > usually seldom used by drivers. For example, only two in-tree users(ceph, iov_iter). > > That is why I rename it, and seems Christoph prefers to do it too. > > If you want to do a rename, then we do it after. I don't want to deal with > weeks and weeks of fallout from this. Write a rename script that we can > then run at the end of the next merge window. You're going to be playing > catch-up until that happens if we go the current route, and honestly > I'm not at all interested in the fallout from that. > > I know exactly what will happen until 5.1-rc opens, and what my tree will > look like from having to deal with this. And then I know exactly what Linus > is going to say, and I can't even argue against it, since he'll be totally > right. > > Hence it's not going to happen this way. I can remove the renaming in patch 'block: rename bvec helpers', but change on bio_for_each_segment_all() is inevitable, and it is still an API change, so merge conflict can't avoid too. Thanks, Ming