On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 01:44:27PM +0000, broonie@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got conflicts in:
>
> fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> fs/btrfs/file.c
> fs/btrfs/inode.c
> fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> fs/btrfs/lzo.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 2ac3e062af024 ("btrfs: reduce extent threshold for autodefrag")
> 741b23a970a79 ("btrfs: prevent copying too big compressed lzo segment")
> 26fbac2517fca ("btrfs: autodefrag: only scan one inode once")
> 966d879bafaaf ("btrfs: defrag: allow defrag_one_cluster() to skip large extent which is not a target")
> d5633b0dee02d ("btrfs: defrag: bring back the old file extent search behavior")
>
> from the btrfs-fixes tree and commit:
>
> 13b2f7ab699a5 ("btrfs: close the gap between inode_should_defrag() and autodefrag extent size threshold")
> 48b433a2ef82a ("btrfs: add lzo workspace buffer length constants")
> db360c49d476f ("btrfs: autodefrag: only scan one inode once")
> e6c69fcbee7ef ("btrfs: defrag: use control structure in btrfs_defrag_file()")
> 6b17743d934ec ("btrfs: defrag: bring back the old file extent search behavior")
>
> from the btrfs tree.
The fixes and for-next snapshot branches got out of sync a bit, I've
checked that they merge without conflicts as of yesterday.
