Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1676314 > unrolled thread

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the file-locks tree

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the file-locks tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-06-28 04:00 +0200
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the file-locks  tree Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2017-06-28 04:10 +0200
      Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the file-locks  tree Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net> - 2017-06-28 12:00 +0200
        Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the file-locks  tree Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2017-06-28 14:50 +0200

#1676314 — linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the file-locks tree

Hi Jens,

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

  include/linux/fs.h

between commit:

  3f64df8a51ce ("fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting")

from the file-locks tree and commit:

  c75b1d9421f8 ("fs: add fcntl() interface for setting/getting write life time hints")

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 include/linux/fs.h
index 6830a4ea9eed,65adbddb3163..000000000000
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@@ -848,7 -856,7 +857,8 @@@ struct file 
  	 * Must not be taken from IRQ context.
  	 */
  	spinlock_t		f_lock;
 +	errseq_t		f_wb_err;
+ 	enum rw_hint		f_write_hint;
  	atomic_long_t		f_count;
  	unsigned int 		f_flags;
  	fmode_t			f_mode;
@@@ -2512,9 -2542,11 +2539,11 @@@ extern int write_inode_now(struct inod
  extern int filemap_fdatawrite(struct address_space *);
  extern int filemap_flush(struct address_space *);
  extern int filemap_fdatawait(struct address_space *);
 -extern void filemap_fdatawait_keep_errors(struct address_space *);
 +extern int filemap_fdatawait_keep_errors(struct address_space *mapping);
  extern int filemap_fdatawait_range(struct address_space *, loff_t lstart,
  				   loff_t lend);
+ extern bool filemap_range_has_page(struct address_space *, loff_t lstart,
+ 				  loff_t lend);
  extern int filemap_write_and_wait(struct address_space *mapping);
  extern int filemap_write_and_wait_range(struct address_space *mapping,
  				        loff_t lstart, loff_t lend);

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1676319 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the file-locks tree

On 06/27/2017 07:57 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/linux/fs.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   3f64df8a51ce ("fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting")
> 
> from the file-locks tree and commit:
> 
>   c75b1d9421f8 ("fs: add fcntl() interface for setting/getting write life time hints")
> 
> from the block tree.

Looks like we stole the same hole! Let's just merge it like this, then
post merge I (or Jeff) can move the member to a better location.

-- 
Jens Axboe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1676502 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the file-locks tree

On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 20:01 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 06/27/2017 07:57 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Jens,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   include/linux/fs.h
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   3f64df8a51ce ("fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting")
> > 
> > from the file-locks tree and commit:
> > 
> >   c75b1d9421f8 ("fs: add fcntl() interface for setting/getting write life time hints")
> > 
> > from the block tree.
> 
> Looks like we stole the same hole! Let's just merge it like this, then
> post merge I (or Jeff) can move the member to a better location.
> 

(cc'ing Al since he might pick these up...)

Indeed!

I'll plan to move f_wb_err to the end of the struct.

I have some later patches that add a second 32-bit errseq_t field to
struct file for tracking metadata writeback errors. That would make them
adjacent to one another which at least looks a little cleaner.

Cheers,
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1676626 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the file-locks tree

On 06/28/2017 03:54 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 20:01 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 06/27/2017 07:57 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi Jens,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>>   include/linux/fs.h
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>>   3f64df8a51ce ("fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting")
>>>
>>> from the file-locks tree and commit:
>>>
>>>   c75b1d9421f8 ("fs: add fcntl() interface for setting/getting write life time hints")
>>>
>>> from the block tree.
>>
>> Looks like we stole the same hole! Let's just merge it like this, then
>> post merge I (or Jeff) can move the member to a better location.
>>
> 
> (cc'ing Al since he might pick these up...)
> 
> Indeed!
> 
> I'll plan to move f_wb_err to the end of the struct.
> 
> I have some later patches that add a second 32-bit errseq_t field to
> struct file for tracking metadata writeback errors. That would make them
> adjacent to one another which at least looks a little cleaner.

OK perfect, I'll just ignore the issue then :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web