[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240312150228.31190b3c@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:02:28 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Cc: 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
Hi all,
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:41:40 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> 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")
>
> 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.
>
> 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);
> }
> }
This is now a conflict between the f2fs tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists