linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240510123419.42f727c1@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 12:34:19 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next
 Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs tree

Hi all,

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

  block/blk-core.c

between commit:

  3f9b8fb46e5d ("Use bdev_is_paritition() instead of open-coding it")

from the vfs tree and commit:

  99dc422335d8 ("block: support to account io_ticks precisely")

from the block 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 block/blk-core.c
index a4035dc7640d,01186333c88e..000000000000
--- a/block/blk-core.c
+++ b/block/blk-core.c
@@@ -990,11 -986,12 +989,12 @@@ void update_io_ticks(struct block_devic
  	unsigned long stamp;
  again:
  	stamp = READ_ONCE(part->bd_stamp);
- 	if (unlikely(time_after(now, stamp))) {
- 		if (likely(try_cmpxchg(&part->bd_stamp, &stamp, now)))
- 			__part_stat_add(part, io_ticks, end ? now - stamp : 1);
- 	}
+ 	if (unlikely(time_after(now, stamp)) &&
+ 	    likely(try_cmpxchg(&part->bd_stamp, &stamp, now)) &&
+ 	    (end || part_in_flight(part)))
+ 		__part_stat_add(part, io_ticks, now - stamp);
+ 
 -	if (part->bd_partno) {
 +	if (bdev_is_partition(part)) {
  		part = bdev_whole(part);
  		goto again;
  	}

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped