linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs-kdave tree with Linus' tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 4 Sep 2017 16:02:30 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs-kdave tree with Linus'
 tree

Hi all,

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 09:58:25 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs-kdave tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/btrfs/inode.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   58efbc9f5463 ("Btrfs: fix blk_status_t/errno confusion")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   e6961cac730f ("btrfs: Move skip checksum check from btrfs_submit_direct to __btrfs_submit_dio_bio")
> 
> from the btrfs-kdave 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/btrfs/inode.c
> index 24bcd5cd9cf2,d184a46e46c4..000000000000
> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> @@@ -7991,10 -8080,9 +8081,10 @@@ static blk_status_t dio_read_error(stru
>   	struct extent_io_tree *failure_tree = &BTRFS_I(inode)->io_failure_tree;
>   	struct bio *bio;
>   	int isector;
> - 	int read_mode = 0;
> + 	unsigned int read_mode = 0;
>   	int segs;
>   	int ret;
>  +	blk_status_t status;
>   
>   	BUG_ON(bio_op(failed_bio) == REQ_OP_WRITE);
>   
> @@@ -8021,11 -8109,11 +8111,11 @@@
>   	bio_set_op_attrs(bio, REQ_OP_READ, read_mode);
>   
>   	btrfs_debug(BTRFS_I(inode)->root->fs_info,
> - 		    "Repair DIO Read Error: submitting new dio read[%#x] to this_mirror=%d, in_validation=%d\n",
> + 		    "repair DIO read error: submitting new dio read[%#x] to this_mirror=%d, in_validation=%d",
>   		    read_mode, failrec->this_mirror, failrec->in_validation);
>   
>  -	ret = submit_dio_repair_bio(inode, bio, failrec->this_mirror);
>  -	if (ret) {
>  +	status = submit_dio_repair_bio(inode, bio, failrec->this_mirror);
>  +	if (status) {
>   		free_io_failure(failure_tree, io_tree, failrec);
>   		bio_put(bio);
>   	}
> @@@ -8426,9 -8513,8 +8516,9 @@@ static inline blk_status_t btrfs_lookup
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
>  -static inline int __btrfs_submit_dio_bio(struct bio *bio, struct inode *inode,
>  -					 u64 file_offset, int async_submit)
>  +static inline blk_status_t
>  +__btrfs_submit_dio_bio(struct bio *bio, struct inode *inode, u64 file_offset,
> - 		       int skip_sum, int async_submit)
> ++		       int async_submit)
>   {
>   	struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = btrfs_sb(inode->i_sb);
>   	struct btrfs_dio_private *dip = bio->bi_private;
> @@@ -8541,9 -8625,9 +8630,9 @@@ static int btrfs_submit_direct_hook(str
>   		 */
>   		atomic_inc(&dip->pending_bios);
>   
> - 		status = __btrfs_submit_dio_bio(bio, inode, file_offset, skip_sum,
>  -		ret = __btrfs_submit_dio_bio(bio, inode, file_offset,
>  -					     async_submit);
>  -		if (ret) {
> ++		status = __btrfs_submit_dio_bio(bio, inode, file_offset,
>  +						async_submit);
>  +		if (status) {
>   			bio_put(bio);
>   			atomic_dec(&dip->pending_bios);
>   			goto out_err;
> @@@ -8561,9 -8645,8 +8650,8 @@@
>   	} while (submit_len > 0);
>   
>   submit:
> - 	status = __btrfs_submit_dio_bio(bio, inode, file_offset, skip_sum,
> - 					async_submit);
>  -	ret = __btrfs_submit_dio_bio(bio, inode, file_offset, async_submit);
>  -	if (!ret)
> ++	status = __btrfs_submit_dio_bio(bio, inode, file_offset, async_submit);
>  +	if (!status)
>   		return 0;
>   
>   	bio_put(bio);

Just a reminder that this conflict still exists.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell