linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the f2fs 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 16:40:51 -0800
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>,
	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-brauner tree with the f2fs
 tree

On 03/05, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
> 
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:13:28 -0800 Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 02/29, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   fs/f2fs/super.c
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >   5fa6a97d2784 ("f2fs: introduce SEGS_TO_BLKS/BLKS_TO_SEGS for cleanup")  
> > 
> > fyi; I dropped the above commit in -dev.
> 
> And it seems to have come back as commit
> 
>   45809cd3bdac ("f2fs: introduce SEGS_TO_BLKS/BLKS_TO_SEGS for cleanup")
> 
> (which is fine, but the conflict has returned).

Yeah.. :P

> 
> > > from the f2fs tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   512383ae4910 ("f2fs: port block device access to files")
> > > 
> > > from the vfs-brauner 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/f2fs/super.c
> > > index 09ffdd554f9c,09e82624eff5..000000000000
> > > --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > > @@@ -4206,9 -4265,9 +4206,9 @@@ static int f2fs_scan_devices(struct f2f
> > >   			} else {
> > >   				FDEV(i).start_blk = FDEV(i - 1).end_blk + 1;
> > >   				FDEV(i).end_blk = FDEV(i).start_blk +
> > >  -					(FDEV(i).total_segments <<
> > >  -					sbi->log_blocks_per_seg) - 1;
> > >  +						SEGS_TO_BLKS(sbi,
> > >  +						FDEV(i).total_segments) - 1;
> > > - 				FDEV(i).bdev_handle = bdev_open_by_path(
> > > + 				FDEV(i).bdev_file = bdev_file_open_by_path(
> > >   					FDEV(i).path, mode, sbi->sb, NULL);
> > >   			}
> > >   		}  
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell