On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 03:11:07PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 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 :-(
Thanks for the confirmation!
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
