[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221205151107.05579d52@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 15:11:07 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>,
Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
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 vfs tree with the erofs tree
Hi Gao,
On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 11:13:50 +0800 Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > fs/erofs/fscache.c
> >
> > between commits:
> >
> > 89175ef1262d ("erofs: switch to prepare_ondemand_read() in fscache mode")
> > 89175ef1262d ("erofs: switch to prepare_ondemand_read() in fscache mode")
> >
> > from the erofs tree and commit:
> >
> > 89175ef1262d ("erofs: switch to prepare_ondemand_read() in fscache mode")
> >
> > from the vfs tree.
>
> Is the commit from the vfs tree correct?
>
> The conflict fix looks good to me (we tend to enable large folios in the
> next cycle.)
The commits should be
89175ef1262d ("erofs: switch to prepare_ondemand_read() in fscache mode")
a21274e993a6 ("erofs: support large folios for fscache mode")
from the erofs tree and
de4eda9de2d9 ("use less confusing names for iov_iter direction initializers")
from the vfs tree.
Cut and paste weirdness caught me again :-(
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists