Hi all,

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

  block/elevator.c

between commit:

  b4ff6e93bfd0 ("elevator: do not request_module if elevator exists")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  a2c17a5ea44f ("block: return void from the queue_sysfs_entry load_module method")

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 block/elevator.c
index 9430cde13d1a,d6b4eb5443d9..000000000000
--- a/block/elevator.c
+++ b/block/elevator.c
@@@ -708,23 -709,12 +708,21 @@@ void elv_iosched_load_module(struct gen
  			    size_t count)
  {
  	char elevator_name[ELV_NAME_MAX];
 +	struct elevator_type *found;
 +	const char *name;
  
  	if (!elv_support_iosched(disk->queue))
- 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+ 		return;
  
  	strscpy(elevator_name, buf, sizeof(elevator_name));
 -	request_module("%s-iosched", strstrip(elevator_name));
 +	name = strstrip(elevator_name);
 +
 +	spin_lock(&elv_list_lock);
 +	found = __elevator_find(name);
 +	spin_unlock(&elv_list_lock);
 +
 +	if (!found)
 +		request_module("%s-iosched", name);
- 
- 	return 0;
  }
  
  ssize_t elv_iosched_store(struct gendisk *disk, const char *buf,

On 10/20/24 7:06 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   block/elevator.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   b4ff6e93bfd0 ("elevator: do not request_module if elevator exists")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   a2c17a5ea44f ("block: return void from the queue_sysfs_entry load_module method")
> 
> 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.

I'll cooperate better with myself :-)

Merge looks good - just did it on my end too for my for-next branch, and
it's identical. Your next pull of the block for-next branch should merge
cleanly.

-- 
Jens Axboe