linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the folio tree with the erofs 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20220315203112.03f6120c@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Tue, 15 Mar 2022 20:31:12 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>
Cc:     Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the folio tree with the erofs tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/erofs/super.c

between commit:

  ab6bfa6e1e22 ("erofs: refine managed inode stuffs")

from the erofs tree and commit:

  8c5b1ba024af ("erofs: Convert from invalidatepage to invalidate_folio")

from the folio 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/erofs/super.c
index e178100c162a,a64c422f6763..000000000000
--- a/fs/erofs/super.c
+++ b/fs/erofs/super.c
@@@ -532,24 -535,18 +532,23 @@@ static int erofs_managed_cache_releasep
  	return ret;
  }
  
 +/*
 + * It will be called only on inode eviction. In case that there are still some
 + * decompression requests in progress, wait with rescheduling for a bit here.
 + * We could introduce an extra locking instead but it seems unnecessary.
 + */
- static void erofs_managed_cache_invalidatepage(struct page *page,
- 					       unsigned int offset,
- 					       unsigned int length)
+ static void erofs_managed_cache_invalidate_folio(struct folio *folio,
+ 					       size_t offset, size_t length)
  {
- 	const unsigned int stop = length + offset;
+ 	const size_t stop = length + offset;
  
- 	DBG_BUGON(!PageLocked(page));
+ 	DBG_BUGON(!folio_test_locked(folio));
  
  	/* Check for potential overflow in debug mode */
- 	DBG_BUGON(stop > PAGE_SIZE || stop < length);
+ 	DBG_BUGON(stop > folio_size(folio) || stop < length);
  
- 	if (offset == 0 && stop == PAGE_SIZE)
- 		while (!erofs_managed_cache_releasepage(page, GFP_NOFS))
+ 	if (offset == 0 && stop == folio_size(folio))
+ 		while (!erofs_managed_cache_releasepage(&folio->page, GFP_NOFS))
  			cond_resched();
  }
  

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped