On 03/05, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:13:28 -0800 Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 02/29, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > fs/f2fs/super.c
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > > 5fa6a97d2784 ("f2fs: introduce SEGS_TO_BLKS/BLKS_TO_SEGS for cleanup")
> >
> > fyi; I dropped the above commit in -dev.
>
> And it seems to have come back as commit
>
> 45809cd3bdac ("f2fs: introduce SEGS_TO_BLKS/BLKS_TO_SEGS for cleanup")
>
> (which is fine, but the conflict has returned).
Yeah.. :P
>
> > > from the f2fs tree and commit:
> > >
> > > 512383ae4910 ("f2fs: port block device access to files")
> > >
> > > 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/f2fs/super.c
> > > index 09ffdd554f9c,09e82624eff5..000000000000
> > > --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > > @@@ -4206,9 -4265,9 +4206,9 @@@ static int f2fs_scan_devices(struct f2f
> > > } else {
> > > FDEV(i).start_blk = FDEV(i - 1).end_blk + 1;
> > > FDEV(i).end_blk = FDEV(i).start_blk +
> > > - (FDEV(i).total_segments <<
> > > - sbi->log_blocks_per_seg) - 1;
> > > + SEGS_TO_BLKS(sbi,
> > > + FDEV(i).total_segments) - 1;
> > > - FDEV(i).bdev_handle = bdev_open_by_path(
> > > + FDEV(i).bdev_file = bdev_file_open_by_path(
> > > FDEV(i).path, mode, sbi->sb, NULL);
> > > }
> > > }
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
