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

Stephen Rothwell posted 1 patch 1 year, 1 month ago
There is a newer version of this series
linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the vfs-brauner tree
Posted by Stephen Rothwell 1 year, 1 month ago
Hi all,

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

  fs/eventpoll.c

between commit:

  d3a194d95fc8 ("epoll: simplify ep_busy_loop by removing always 0 argument")

from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:

  b9d752105e5f ("net: use napi_id_valid helper")

from the net-next 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/eventpoll.c
index 9b06a0ab9c32,2fecf66661e9..000000000000
--- a/fs/eventpoll.c
+++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
@@@ -447,8 -447,8 +447,8 @@@ static bool ep_busy_loop(struct eventpo
  	if (!budget)
  		budget = BUSY_POLL_BUDGET;
  
- 	if (napi_id >= MIN_NAPI_ID && ep_busy_loop_on(ep)) {
+ 	if (napi_id_valid(napi_id) && ep_busy_loop_on(ep)) {
 -		napi_busy_loop(napi_id, nonblock ? NULL : ep_busy_loop_end,
 +		napi_busy_loop(napi_id, ep_busy_loop_end,
  			       ep, prefer_busy_poll, budget);
  		if (ep_events_available(ep))
  			return true;
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the vfs-brauner tree
Posted by Lin Feng 1 year, 1 month ago

On 2/28/25 10:29, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/eventpoll.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   d3a194d95fc8 ("epoll: simplify ep_busy_loop by removing always 0 argument")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> 
>   b9d752105e5f ("net: use napi_id_valid helper")
> 
> from the net-next 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.
> 

Hi Stephen,

The conflict fix looks good to me, thanks for handling this!

linfeng