Hi all,
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 12:41:44 +0100 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/btrfs/inode.c
>
> between commit:
>
> adaac2633c9ad ("btrfs: remove super block argument from btrfs_iget_locked()")
>
> from the btrfs tree and commit:
>
> b49558e8ce3dc ("btrfs: use iget5_locked_rcu")
>
> 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.
>
> diff --cc fs/btrfs/inode.c
> index 89e58647d08de,cbb2c92b6c084..0000000000000
> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> @@@ -5582,7 -5587,7 +5582,7 @@@ static struct inode *btrfs_iget_locked(
> args.ino = ino;
> args.root = root;
>
> - inode = iget5_locked(root->fs_info->sb, hashval, btrfs_find_actor,
> - inode = iget5_locked_rcu(s, hashval, btrfs_find_actor,
> ++ inode = iget5_locked_rcu(root->fs_info->sb, hashval, btrfs_find_actor,
> btrfs_init_locked_inode,
> (void *)&args);
> return inode;
This is now a coflict between the btrfs tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpiTHQR0hdk3.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
