On 9/1/22 1:47 AM, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 8/31/22 23:17, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the mm tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> block/blk-map.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> e88811bc43b9 ("block: use on-stack page vec for <= UIO_FASTIOV")
>>
>> from the block tree and commit:
>>
>> 2e9a2aa23dad ("block, bio, fs: convert most filesystems to pin_user_pages_fast()")
>>
>> from the mm tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as
>
> The fix up looks correct to me.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Of the 7 patches in my series [1], the first two are in mm, and provide
> some prerequisites. The remaining patches apply to block, bio, fs, and
> iov_iter, and that's where this merge conflict happened.
>
> Also, there's still some upcoming churn (more patchset revisions are
> coming), as reviews are still active and this one isn't perfected yet.
>
> So I see two obvious solutions. Either:
>
> a) Only do the first two patches for now, and leave them in Andrew's
> tree. After the next release, do the remaining 5 patches via the block
> tree, or
>
> b) Move the whole series to the block tree now, or
>
> c) something else?
>
> Andrew, Jens, any preference here?
Would've been cleaner to take through the block tree given what
it touches, imho. Or at least base on that, so we'd avoid frivolous
conflicts like this.
--
Jens Axboe
