[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240716105818.03558dae@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 10:58:18 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs
tree
Hi all,
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 12:41:44 +0100 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/btrfs/inode.c
>
> between commit:
>
> adaac2633c9ad ("btrfs: remove super block argument from btrfs_iget_locked()")
>
> from the btrfs tree and commit:
>
> b49558e8ce3dc ("btrfs: use iget5_locked_rcu")
>
> 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/btrfs/inode.c
> index 89e58647d08de,cbb2c92b6c084..0000000000000
> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> @@@ -5582,7 -5587,7 +5582,7 @@@ static struct inode *btrfs_iget_locked(
> args.ino = ino;
> args.root = root;
>
> - inode = iget5_locked(root->fs_info->sb, hashval, btrfs_find_actor,
> - inode = iget5_locked_rcu(s, hashval, btrfs_find_actor,
> ++ inode = iget5_locked_rcu(root->fs_info->sb, hashval, btrfs_find_actor,
> btrfs_init_locked_inode,
> (void *)&args);
> return inode;
This is now a coflict between the btrfs tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists