Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the fscrypt tree

[Jens Axboe]

On 1/15/19 7:25 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/ext4/readpage.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   acc9eb0a6073 ("ext4: add fs-verity read support")
> 
> from the fscrypt tree and commit:
> 
>   eb754eb2a953 ("block: allow bio_for_each_segment_all() to iterate over multi-page bvec")
> 
> from the block tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below - the former moved the code modified by the
> latter) 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.

Ming, I'm pulling this, I thought we agreed none of these bullshit
renames? The fact that a patch looks like this:

-               for_each_bvec(bv, (it)->bvecs, __cur_iter, __cur_iter)        \
+               for_each_segment(bv, (it)->bvecs, __cur_iter, __cur_iter)     \

is SUPER annoying and does NOTHING but to cause merge conflicts.

Resend it without that.

-- 
Jens Axboe