linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the cifs tree

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the cifs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got conflicts in:

  fs/cifs/fscache.c

between commit:

  8378eea2e41f ("cifs: Change the I/O paths to use an iterator rather than a page list")

from the cifs tree and commit:

  220ae4a5c2ba ("cifs: use bvec_set_page to initialize bvecs")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed the code updated by the latter in
fscache_fallback_write_pages(), so I did that) 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the cifs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1023 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:42:01 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   fs/cifs/fscache.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   8378eea2e41f ("cifs: Change the I/O paths to use an iterator rather than a page list")
> 
> from the cifs tree and commit:
> 
>   220ae4a5c2ba ("cifs: use bvec_set_page to initialize bvecs")
> 
> from the block tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the former removed the code updated by the latter in
> fscache_fallback_write_pages(), so I did that) 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.

This is now a conflict between the cifs tree and Linus' tree.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the cifs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 783 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:

  fs/cifs/smb2ops.c

between commit:

  8378eea2e41f ("cifs: Change the I/O paths to use an iterator rather than a page list")

from the cifs tree and commit:

  220ae4a5c2ba ("cifs: use bvec_set_page to initialize bvecs")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed the code updated by the latter) 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the cifs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 973 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:50:56 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/cifs/smb2ops.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   8378eea2e41f ("cifs: Change the I/O paths to use an iterator rather than a page list")
> 
> from the cifs tree and commit:
> 
>   220ae4a5c2ba ("cifs: use bvec_set_page to initialize bvecs")
> 
> from the block tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the former removed the code updated by the latter) 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.

This is now a conflict between the cifs tree and Linus' tree.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the cifs tree

[Steve French]

Should I rebase my cifs for-next branch on Christoph's patch (now in
mainline) to make it easier to merge my branch later in the week?

       cifs: use bvec_set_page to initialize bvecs
         Use the bvec_set_page helper to initialize bvecs.
       Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

This would avoid merge conflicts in various of David Howell's patches
in my tree.

Thoughts?

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 6:39 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:50:56 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   fs/cifs/smb2ops.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   8378eea2e41f ("cifs: Change the I/O paths to use an iterator rather than a page list")
> >
> > from the cifs tree and commit:
> >
> >   220ae4a5c2ba ("cifs: use bvec_set_page to initialize bvecs")
> >
> > from the block tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (the former removed the code updated by the latter) 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.
>
> This is now a conflict between the cifs tree and Linus' tree.
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell



-- 
Thanks,

Steve

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the cifs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 779 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:

  fs/cifs/misc.c

between commit:

  8378eea2e41f ("cifs: Change the I/O paths to use an iterator rather than a page list")

from the cifs tree and commit:

  220ae4a5c2ba ("cifs: use bvec_set_page to initialize bvecs")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed the code update by the latter) 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the cifs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 970 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:46:44 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/cifs/misc.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   8378eea2e41f ("cifs: Change the I/O paths to use an iterator rather than a page list")
> 
> from the cifs tree and commit:
> 
>   220ae4a5c2ba ("cifs: use bvec_set_page to initialize bvecs")
> 
> from the block tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the former removed the code update by the latter) 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.

This is now a conflict between the cifs tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the cifs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 780 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:

  fs/cifs/file.c

between commit:

  8378eea2e41f ("cifs: Change the I/O paths to use an iterator rather than a page list")

from the cifs tree and commit:

  45b94876f54e ("iov_iter: Kill ITER_PIPE")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed the function updated by the latter,
so I did that) 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the cifs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1124 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:

  mm/filemap.c

between commit:

  03aaa67b45e7 ("splice: Add a func to do a splice from a buffered file without ITER_PIPE")

from the cifs tree and commit:

  a53cad008099 ("splice: Add a func to do a splice from a buffered file without ITER_PIPE")

from the block tree.

These are slightly different versions of the same patch :-( (with the same
author date).  the difference amounts to this in filemap_splice_read():

-			n = splice_folio_into_pipe(pipe, folio, *ppos, len);
+			n = min_t(loff_t, len, isize - *ppos);
+			n = splice_folio_into_pipe(pipe, folio, *ppos, n);

I fixed it up (I used the former version (that has the min_t check)) 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]