On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 09:37:33AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/5/24 6:48 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > block/blk.h
> >
> > between commits:
> >
> > 19db932fd2b0 ("bdev: make bdev_{release, open_by_dev}() private to block layer")
> > 09f8289e1b74 ("bdev: make struct bdev_handle private to the block layer")
> > d75140abba91 ("bdev: remove bdev pointer from struct bdev_handle")
> >
> > from the vfs-brauner tree and commits:
> >
> > c4e47bbb00da ("block: move cgroup time handling code into blk.h")
> > 08420cf70cfb ("block: add blk_time_get_ns() and blk_time_get() helpers")
> > da4c8c3d0975 ("block: cache current nsec time in struct blk_plug")
> > 06b23f92af87 ("block: update cached timestamp post schedule/preemption")
> >
> > from the block 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.
>
> That's a lot of conflicts. Christian, we really should separate some of
> these so we can have the shared bits in a shared branch.
Yes, happy to do that. Let's quickly sync later today when you're up?
