linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with the mm 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]

Message-ID: <20230627104520.25411bc6@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2023 10:45:20 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>, 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 btrfs tree with the mm tree

Hi all,

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 09:08:03 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/btrfs/file.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   39bf7bdb48fe ("backing_dev: remove current->backing_dev_info")
> 
> from the mm tree and commit:
> 
>   3564004ccddf ("btrfs: determine synchronous writers from bio or writeback control")
> 
> from the btrfs 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/file.c
> index ecd43ab66fa6,f53b7b75092d..000000000000
> --- a/fs/btrfs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c
> @@@ -1683,9 -1682,7 +1679,6 @@@ ssize_t btrfs_do_write_iter(struct kioc
>   			num_written = num_sync;
>   	}
>   
> - 	if (sync)
> - 		atomic_dec(&inode->sync_writers);
> - 
>  -	current->backing_dev_info = NULL;
>   	return num_written;
>   }
>   

This is now a conflict between the mm-stable tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped