On Wed, 12 May 2021 11:48:05 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, 12 May 2021 11:43:42 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the iio tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 901f84de0e16 ("iio: core: fix ioctl handlers removal")
> >
> > from the staging.current tree and commit:
> >
> > 919a6adf8107 ("iio: core: move @chrdev from struct iio_dev to struct iio_dev_opaque")
> >
> > from the iio 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.
> >
> > diff --cc drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c
> > index 59efb36db2c7,efb4cf91c9e4..000000000000
> > --- a/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c
> > @@@ -1785,10 -1811,10 +1810,10 @@@ static long iio_ioctl(struct file *filp
> > }
> >
> > if (ret == IIO_IOCTL_UNHANDLED)
> > - ret = -EINVAL;
> > + ret = -ENODEV;
> >
> > out_unlock:
> > - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->info_exist_lock);
> > + mutex_unlock(&iio_dev_opaque->info_exist_lock);
> >
> > return ret;
> > }
> > @@@ -1925,9 -1951,12 +1950,9 @@@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__iio_device_register)
> > **/
> > void iio_device_unregister(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> > {
> > - cdev_device_del(&indio_dev->chrdev, &indio_dev->dev);
> > - struct iio_dev_opaque *iio_dev_opaque = to_iio_dev_opaque(indio_dev);
> > - struct iio_ioctl_handler *h, *t;
> > -
> > + cdev_device_del(&iio_dev_opaque->chrdev, &indio_dev->dev);
> >
> > - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->info_exist_lock);
> > + mutex_lock(&iio_dev_opaque->info_exist_lock);
> >
> > iio_device_unregister_debugfs(indio_dev);
> >
>
> Actually, I had to add back the iio_dev_opaque declaration line.
>
Makes sense. I'll deal with this in the IIO tree after rc2.
thanks,
Jonathan
