Hi all,
On Fri, 10 May 2024 12:34:19 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
>
> block/blk-core.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 3f9b8fb46e5d ("Use bdev_is_paritition() instead of open-coding it")
>
> from the vfs tree and commit:
>
> 99dc422335d8 ("block: support to account io_ticks precisely")
>
> 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.
>
>
> diff --cc block/blk-core.c
> index a4035dc7640d,01186333c88e..000000000000
> --- a/block/blk-core.c
> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> @@@ -990,11 -986,12 +989,12 @@@ void update_io_ticks(struct block_devic
> unsigned long stamp;
> again:
> stamp = READ_ONCE(part->bd_stamp);
> - if (unlikely(time_after(now, stamp))) {
> - if (likely(try_cmpxchg(&part->bd_stamp, &stamp, now)))
> - __part_stat_add(part, io_ticks, end ? now - stamp : 1);
> - }
> + if (unlikely(time_after(now, stamp)) &&
> + likely(try_cmpxchg(&part->bd_stamp, &stamp, now)) &&
> + (end || part_in_flight(part)))
> + __part_stat_add(part, io_ticks, now - stamp);
> +
> - if (part->bd_partno) {
> + if (bdev_is_partition(part)) {
> part = bdev_whole(part);
> goto again;
> }
This is now a conflict between the vfs tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpnSH3SjkxCy.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
