[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201215071212.7a83aade@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 07:12:12 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Cc: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>, Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the f2fs tree
Hi all,
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 14:43:48 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got conflicts in:
>
> fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> fs/f2fs/super.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 5c0602188dc7 ("f2fs: fix kbytes written stat for multi-device case")
>
> from the f2fs tree and commits:
>
> 8446fe9255be ("block: switch partition lookup to use struct block_device")
> 9499ffc75217 ("f2fs: remove a few bd_part checks")
>
> from the block tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I think, see below, fs/f2fs/f2fs.h and fs/f2fs/super.c
> used the versions from the f2fs tree) 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/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> index 14ba1519639e,54a1905af052..000000000000
> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> @@@ -1385,27 -1385,6 +1385,26 @@@ static void commit_checkpoint(struct f2
> f2fs_submit_merged_write(sbi, META_FLUSH);
> }
>
> +static inline u64 get_sectors_written(struct block_device *bdev)
> +{
> - return bdev->bd_part ?
> - (u64)part_stat_read(bdev->bd_part, sectors[STAT_WRITE]) : 0;
> ++ return (u64)part_stat_read(bdev, sectors[STAT_WRITE]) : 0;
^^^^
With this rmeoved.
> +}
> +
> +u64 f2fs_get_sectors_written(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
> +{
> + if (f2fs_is_multi_device(sbi)) {
> + u64 sectors = 0;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < sbi->s_ndevs; i++)
> + sectors += get_sectors_written(FDEV(i).bdev);
> +
> + return sectors;
> + }
> +
> + return get_sectors_written(sbi->sb->s_bdev);
> +}
> +
> static int do_checkpoint(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct cp_control *cpc)
> {
> struct f2fs_checkpoint *ckpt = F2FS_CKPT(sbi);
> diff --cc fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> index 5cd1b9f7cc53,49681a8d2b14..000000000000
> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> diff --cc fs/f2fs/super.c
> index 47858e0c5e95,af9f449da64b..000000000000
> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
Just a reminder that the above conflict still exists.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists