Hi all,

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

  fs/nilfs2/inode.c

between commit:

  f132ab7d3ab0 ("fs: Convert mpage_readpage to mpage_read_folio")

from the folio tree and commit:

  e38ed506c42f ("nilfs2: Fix some kernel-doc comments")

from the mm 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/nilfs2/inode.c
index 538ca5473b0d,6a00cf324cbd..000000000000
--- a/fs/nilfs2/inode.c
+++ b/fs/nilfs2/inode.c
@@@ -140,14 -140,14 +140,14 @@@ int nilfs_get_block(struct inode *inode
  }
  
  /**
 - * nilfs_readpage() - implement readpage() method of nilfs_aops {}
 + * nilfs_read_folio() - implement read_folio() method of nilfs_aops {}
   * address_space_operations.
-  * @file - file struct of the file to be read
-  * @folio - the folio to be read
+  * @file: file struct of the file to be read
 - * @page: the page to be read
++ * @folio: the folio to be read
   */
 -static int nilfs_readpage(struct file *file, struct page *page)
 +static int nilfs_read_folio(struct file *file, struct folio *folio)
  {
 -	return mpage_readpage(page, nilfs_get_block);
 +	return mpage_read_folio(folio, nilfs_get_block);
  }
  
  static void nilfs_readahead(struct readahead_control *rac)

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 5:26 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the mm tree got a conflict in:
>
>   fs/nilfs2/inode.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   f132ab7d3ab0 ("fs: Convert mpage_readpage to mpage_read_folio")
>
> from the folio tree and commit:
>
>   e38ed506c42f ("nilfs2: Fix some kernel-doc comments")
>
> from the mm 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.

Thanks, Stephen.

Andrew,  please once drop

 e38ed506c42f ("nilfs2: Fix some kernel-doc comments")

from -mm tree.   I will resend a modified patch after the folio patch is merged
to the mainline.

Thanks,
Ryusuke Konishi

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 08:52:17PM +0900, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 5:26 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the mm tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   fs/nilfs2/inode.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   f132ab7d3ab0 ("fs: Convert mpage_readpage to mpage_read_folio")
> >
> > from the folio tree and commit:
> >
> >   e38ed506c42f ("nilfs2: Fix some kernel-doc comments")
> >
> > from the mm 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.
> 
> Thanks, Stephen.
> 
> Andrew,  please once drop
> 
>  e38ed506c42f ("nilfs2: Fix some kernel-doc comments")
> 
> from -mm tree.   I will resend a modified patch after the folio patch is merged
> to the mainline.

I'd be happy to take this patch through my tree instead, if you point me
to where I can pick it up (I don't see it on fsdevel or mm).

Although I do think we need to consider whether implementations of
fs entry points (aops, fops, iops, etc) should have documentation in
the individual filesystems.  I understand why individual filesystem
authors want that, but it would be better if we had really
good central documentation of VFS/FS requirements (and honestly
Documentation/filesystems/{locking.rst,vfs.rst} aren't bad) instead of
reiterating them in each individual filesystem.

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:51 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 08:52:17PM +0900, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
> > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 5:26 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the mm tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > >   fs/nilfs2/inode.c
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > >   f132ab7d3ab0 ("fs: Convert mpage_readpage to mpage_read_folio")
> > >
> > > from the folio tree and commit:
> > >
> > >   e38ed506c42f ("nilfs2: Fix some kernel-doc comments")
> > >
> > > from the mm 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.
> >
> > Thanks, Stephen.
> >
> > Andrew,  please once drop
> >
> >  e38ed506c42f ("nilfs2: Fix some kernel-doc comments")
> >
> > from -mm tree.   I will resend a modified patch after the folio patch is merged
> > to the mainline.
>
> I'd be happy to take this patch through my tree instead, if you point me
> to where I can pick it up (I don't see it on fsdevel or mm).

Thank you for your suggestion.   The patch I signed is below,

 https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1652276316-7791-1-git-send-email-konishi.ryusuke@gmail.com

but I guess it's better to pick up Andrew's, which seems to have been
sent to you
additionally a while ago, if it's OK for Andrew as well.

Regards,
Ryusuke Konishi