Hi Gao,
On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 11:13:50 +0800 Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > fs/erofs/fscache.c
> >
> > between commits:
> >
> > 89175ef1262d ("erofs: switch to prepare_ondemand_read() in fscache mode")
> > 89175ef1262d ("erofs: switch to prepare_ondemand_read() in fscache mode")
> >
> > from the erofs tree and commit:
> >
> > 89175ef1262d ("erofs: switch to prepare_ondemand_read() in fscache mode")
> >
> > from the vfs tree.
>
> Is the commit from the vfs tree correct?
>
> The conflict fix looks good to me (we tend to enable large folios in the
> next cycle.)
The commits should be
89175ef1262d ("erofs: switch to prepare_ondemand_read() in fscache mode")
a21274e993a6 ("erofs: support large folios for fscache mode")
from the erofs tree and
de4eda9de2d9 ("use less confusing names for iov_iter direction initializers")
from the vfs tree.
Cut and paste weirdness caught me again :-(
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgp4qXTzSHxBM.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
