[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240917082219.736ce016@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 08:22:19 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Dongliang Cui
<dongliang.cui@...soc.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)"
<willy@...radead.org>, Yuezhang Mo <Yuezhang.Mo@...y.com>, Zhiguo Niu
<zhiguo.niu@...soc.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the exfat
tree
Hi all,
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 08:10:46 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/exfat/inode.c
>
> between commits:
>
> 3e491faa7648 ("exfat: do not fallback to buffered write")
> 98ad7b9012b5 ("exfat: Implement sops->shutdown and ioctl")
>
> from the exfat tree and commits:
>
> a225800f322a ("fs: Convert aops->write_end to take a folio")
> 1da86618bdce ("fs: Convert aops->write_begin to take a folio")
>
> 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/exfat/inode.c
> index 7d43a0942911,05f0e07b01d0..000000000000
> --- a/fs/exfat/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/exfat/inode.c
> @@@ -428,11 -452,7 +428,10 @@@ static int exfat_write_begin(struct fil
> {
> int ret;
>
> + if (unlikely(exfat_forced_shutdown(mapping->host->i_sb)))
> + return -EIO;
> +
> - *pagep = NULL;
> - ret = block_write_begin(mapping, pos, len, pagep, exfat_get_block);
> + ret = block_write_begin(mapping, pos, len, foliop, exfat_get_block);
>
> if (ret < 0)
> exfat_write_failed(mapping, pos+len);
> @@@ -448,7 -468,15 +447,7 @@@ static int exfat_write_end(struct file
> struct exfat_inode_info *ei = EXFAT_I(inode);
> int err;
>
> - err = generic_write_end(file, mapping, pos, len, copied, pagep, fsdata);
> + err = generic_write_end(file, mapping, pos, len, copied, folio, fsdata);
> -
> - if (ei->i_size_aligned < i_size_read(inode)) {
> - exfat_fs_error(inode->i_sb,
> - "invalid size(size(%llu) > aligned(%llu)\n",
> - i_size_read(inode), ei->i_size_aligned);
> - return -EIO;
> - }
> -
> if (err < len)
> exfat_write_failed(mapping, pos+len);
>
This is now a conflict between the exfat tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists