On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 2:55 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Matthew,
>
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 13:58:29 +0000 Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 03:29:33PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the mm-stable tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > fs/cifs/file.c
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > > c8859bc0c129 ("cifs: Remove unused code")
> > >
> > > from the cifs tree and commits:
> > >
> > > 4cda80f3a7a5 ("cifs: convert wdata_alloc_and_fillpages() to use filemap_get_folios_tag()")
> > > d585bdbeb79a ("fs: convert writepage_t callback to pass a folio")
> > >
> > > from the mm-stable tree.
> > >
> > > This is a real mess :-(
> >
> > Doesn't look too bad to me. Dave's commit is just removing the
> > functions, so it doesn't matter how they're being changed.
>
> The problem I see is that an earlier commit in the cifs tree moves the
> use of find_get_pages_range_tag() to another function and 4cda80f3a7a5
> then removes find_get_pages_range_tag().
>
> > The real question in my mind is why for-next is being updated two days
> > before the merge window with new patches. What's the point in -next
> > if patches are being added at this late point?
>
> Indeed :-(
I don't think it was so much that they were added late (most were
reviewed over multiple week period) - just moved trees to make it
easier a week ago. The changes David etc. have been making recently
to the series seemed fairly small. And I am hoping that his series
allows removal of more dead code as well. Also FYI Paulo caught a
minor bug in one of Dave's patches while testing today, and I noticed
a merge conflict with a small unrelated patch that went into
mm/filemap.c for rc8 so I am rebasing my cifs-2.6.git for-next on 6.2
now (to avoid that merge conflict) and will update later this
afternoon with the trivial fix for the problem Paulo pointed out.
--
Thanks,
Steve
