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

[Kent Overstreet]

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:44:29AM +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 03:58:57PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 03:27:45PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the refactor-heap tree got conflicts in:
> > > 
> > >   drivers/md/bcache/bset.c
> > >   drivers/md/bcache/bset.h
> > >   drivers/md/bcache/btree.c
> > >   drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >   3a861560ccb3 ("bcache: fix variable length array abuse in btree_iter")
> > > 
> > > from the block tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   afa5721abaaa ("bcache: Remove heap-related macros and switch to generic min_heap")
> > > 
> > > from the refactor-heap tree.
> > > 
> > > Ok, these conflicts are too extensive, so I am dropping the refactor-heap
> > > tree for today.  I suggest you all get together and sort something out.
> > 
> > Coli and Kuan, you guys will need to get this sorted out quick if we
> > want refactor-heap to make the merge window
> 
> Hi Coli and Kent,
> 
> If I understand correctly, the reported bug is because we attempted to
> point (heap)->data to a dynamically allocated memory , but at that time
> (heap)->data was not a regular pointer but a fixed size array with a
> length of MAX_BSETS.
> 
> In my refactor heap patch series, I introduced a preallocated array and
> decided in min_heap_init() whether the data pointer should point to an
> incoming pointer or to the preallocated array. Therefore, I am
> wondering if my patch might have unintentionally fixed this bug?
> 
> I am unsure how to reproduce the reported issue. Could you assist me in
> verifying whether my assumption is correct?

This is a merge conflict, not a runtime. Can you rebase onto Coli's
tree? We'll have to retest.