Hi all,
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 10:31:19 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/buffer.c
>
> between commits:
>
> 2c68861ed127 ("buffer: return bool from grow_dev_folio()")
> 5334c6480adb ("buffer: calculate block number inside folio_init_buffers()")
>
> from the mm tree and commit:
>
> 488e2eea5100 ("fs: Rename mapping private members")
>
> from the vfs-brauner tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc fs/buffer.c
> index 4eb44ccdc6be,5ffc44ab4854..000000000000
> --- a/fs/buffer.c
> +++ b/fs/buffer.c
> @@@ -1067,14 -1064,17 +1067,14 @@@ static bool grow_dev_folio(struct block
> * lock to be atomic wrt __find_get_block(), which does not
> * run under the folio lock.
> */
> - spin_lock(&inode->i_mapping->private_lock);
> + spin_lock(&inode->i_mapping->i_private_lock);
> link_dev_buffers(folio, bh);
> - end_block = folio_init_buffers(folio, bdev,
> - (sector_t)index << sizebits, size);
> + end_block = folio_init_buffers(folio, bdev, size);
> - spin_unlock(&inode->i_mapping->private_lock);
> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_mapping->i_private_lock);
> -done:
> - ret = (block < end_block) ? 1 : -ENXIO;
> -failed:
> +unlock:
> folio_unlock(folio);
> folio_put(folio);
> - return ret;
> + return block < end_block;
> }
>
> /*
This is now a conflict between the mm tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpC0WxLxCCLJ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
