Hi all,

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

  fs/iomap/direct-io.c

between commit:

  489734ef94f4 ("iomap: support direct I/O with fscrypt using blk-crypto")

from the fscrypt tree and commit:

  07888c665b40 ("block: pass a block_device and opf to bio_alloc")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (I think - 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/iomap/direct-io.c
index 20325b3926fa,e2ba13645ef2..000000000000
--- a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
+++ b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
@@@ -185,10 -183,7 +185,9 @@@ static void iomap_dio_zero(const struc
  	int flags = REQ_SYNC | REQ_IDLE;
  	struct bio *bio;
  
- 	bio = bio_alloc(GFP_KERNEL, 1);
+ 	bio = bio_alloc(iter->iomap.bdev, 1, REQ_OP_WRITE | flags, GFP_KERNEL);
 +	fscrypt_set_bio_crypt_ctx(bio, inode, pos >> inode->i_blkbits,
 +				  GFP_KERNEL);
- 	bio_set_dev(bio, iter->iomap.bdev);
  	bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = iomap_sector(&iter->iomap, pos);
  	bio->bi_private = dio;
  	bio->bi_end_io = iomap_dio_bio_end_io;
@@@ -313,10 -307,7 +311,9 @@@ static loff_t iomap_dio_bio_iter(const 
  			goto out;
  		}
  
- 		bio = bio_alloc(GFP_KERNEL, nr_pages);
+ 		bio = bio_alloc(iomap->bdev, nr_pages, bio_opf, GFP_KERNEL);
 +		fscrypt_set_bio_crypt_ctx(bio, inode, pos >> inode->i_blkbits,
 +					  GFP_KERNEL);
- 		bio_set_dev(bio, iomap->bdev);
  		bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = iomap_sector(iomap, pos);
  		bio->bi_write_hint = dio->iocb->ki_hint;
  		bio->bi_ioprio = dio->iocb->ki_ioprio;

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:11:39PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> I fixed it up (I think - 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.

Thanks,

the fixup looks good to me.