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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Fri, 10 May 2024 12:34:19 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   block/blk-core.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   3f9b8fb46e5d ("Use bdev_is_paritition() instead of open-coding it")
> 
> from the vfs tree and commit:
> 
>   99dc422335d8 ("block: support to account io_ticks precisely")
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> diff --cc block/blk-core.c
> index a4035dc7640d,01186333c88e..000000000000
> --- a/block/blk-core.c
> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> @@@ -990,11 -986,12 +989,12 @@@ void update_io_ticks(struct block_devic
>   	unsigned long stamp;
>   again:
>   	stamp = READ_ONCE(part->bd_stamp);
> - 	if (unlikely(time_after(now, stamp))) {
> - 		if (likely(try_cmpxchg(&part->bd_stamp, &stamp, now)))
> - 			__part_stat_add(part, io_ticks, end ? now - stamp : 1);
> - 	}
> + 	if (unlikely(time_after(now, stamp)) &&
> + 	    likely(try_cmpxchg(&part->bd_stamp, &stamp, now)) &&
> + 	    (end || part_in_flight(part)))
> + 		__part_stat_add(part, io_ticks, now - stamp);
> + 
>  -	if (part->bd_partno) {
>  +	if (bdev_is_partition(part)) {
>   		part = bdev_whole(part);
>   		goto again;
>   	}

This is now a conflict between the vfs tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Attachment: pgpxr5pbhBFte.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature