From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the libata tree with the block tree Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 16:58:54 +1100 Message-ID: <20161108165854.0872cd8b@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:36481 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750781AbcKHF64 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2016 00:58:56 -0500 Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo , Jens Axboe Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Adam Manzanares , Christoph Hellwig Hi Tejun, Today's linux-next merge of the libata tree got a conflict in: block/blk-core.c between commits: e806402130c9 ("block: split out request-only flags into a new namespace") ef295ecf090d ("block: better op and flags encoding") from the block tree and commit: 5dc8b362a237 ("block: Add iocontext priority to request") from the libata 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 --- a/block/blk-core.c +++ b/block/blk-core.c @@@ -1152,11 -1153,11 +1152,12 @@@ static struct request *__get_request(st blk_rq_init(q, rq); blk_rq_set_rl(rq, rl); + blk_rq_set_prio(rq, ioc); - req_set_op_attrs(rq, op, op_flags | REQ_ALLOCED); + rq->cmd_flags = op; + rq->rq_flags = rq_flags; /* init elvpriv */ - if (op_flags & REQ_ELVPRIV) { + if (rq_flags & RQF_ELVPRIV) { if (unlikely(et->icq_cache && !icq)) { if (ioc) icq = ioc_create_icq(ioc, q, gfp_mask);