linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the exfat tree

Posted by Stephen Rothwell 1 year, 5 months ago

Hi all,

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);

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the exfat tree

Posted by Stephen Rothwell 1 year, 4 months ago

Hi all,

On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 08:10:46 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the exfat tree

Posted by Namjae Jeon 1 year, 4 months ago

On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 7:22 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
Hi Stephen,
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 08:10:46 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.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.
I have updated the exfat tree now. There will be no more conflicts.
Please remove your temporary fixes.
Thank you!
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the exfat tree

Posted by Namjae Jeon 1 year, 5 months ago

2024년 8월 12일 (월) 오전 7:10, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>님이 작성:
>
> Hi all,
>
> 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.
Thanks for your work, Looks good to me:)
I'll send an exfat PR after making sure it doesn't conflict with these patches.
>
> --
> 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);
>