linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with Linus' tree

linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Jaegeuk,

Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got conflicts in:

  fs/ext4/crypto.c
  fs/ext4/ext4.h
  fs/ext4/namei.c

between commits:

  28b4c263961c ("ext4 crypto: revalidate dentry after adding or removing the key")
  ff978b09f973 ("ext4 crypto: move context consistency check to ext4_file_open()")

from Linus' tree (presumably) bug fixes in v4.5-rc5 and commit:

  e29c55a8d406 ("ext4 crypto: migrate into vfs's crypto engine")

from the f2fs tree.

I do not have enough information to fix this up, so I dropped the last
commit from the f2fs tree for today.

I *assume* that this has been passed by Ted - I can;t easily tell as
there are no Acked-by or Reviewed-by tags in the f2fs tree commit.  If
so, perhaps you could either merge v4.5-rc5 yourself and do the
resolutions necessary (with nice comments in the merge commit), or give
me some hints on how to do it.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with Linus' tree

[Jaegeuk Kim]

Hi Stephen,

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:09:51AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   fs/ext4/crypto.c
>   fs/ext4/ext4.h
>   fs/ext4/namei.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   28b4c263961c ("ext4 crypto: revalidate dentry after adding or removing the key")
>   ff978b09f973 ("ext4 crypto: move context consistency check to ext4_file_open()")
> 
> from Linus' tree (presumably) bug fixes in v4.5-rc5 and commit:
> 
>   e29c55a8d406 ("ext4 crypto: migrate into vfs's crypto engine")

Thank you for the report.
Let me rebase my tree on top of v4.5-rc5 to resolve this at this moment.
And, I'll scoop the ext4 patch out of my -next tree for a while until
getting any reivew from Ted.

Thanks,

> 
> from the f2fs tree.
> 
> I do not have enough information to fix this up, so I dropped the last
> commit from the f2fs tree for today.
> 
> I *assume* that this has been passed by Ted - I can;t easily tell as
> there are no Acked-by or Reviewed-by tags in the f2fs tree commit.  If
> so, perhaps you could either merge v4.5-rc5 yourself and do the
> resolutions necessary (with nice comments in the merge commit), or give
> me some hints on how to do it.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with Linus' tree

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On 07/07, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   a7c3e901a46f ("mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   8e9a5c32d310 ("f2fs: support plain user/group quota")
> 
> from the f2fs 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've confirmed. Thank you so much.

> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> index fd2e651bad6d,0ca49e60002c..000000000000
> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> @@@ -2074,6 -2155,36 +2158,16 @@@ static inline void *f2fs_kmalloc(struc
>   	return kmalloc(size, flags);
>   }
>   
>  -static inline void *f2fs_kvmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags)
>  -{
>  -	void *ret;
>  -
>  -	ret = kmalloc(size, flags | __GFP_NOWARN);
>  -	if (!ret)
>  -		ret = __vmalloc(size, flags, PAGE_KERNEL);
>  -	return ret;
>  -}
>  -
>  -static inline void *f2fs_kvzalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags)
>  -{
>  -	void *ret;
>  -
>  -	ret = kzalloc(size, flags | __GFP_NOWARN);
>  -	if (!ret)
>  -		ret = __vmalloc(size, flags | __GFP_ZERO, PAGE_KERNEL);
>  -	return ret;
>  -}
>  -
> + static inline int f2fs_filemap_write_and_wait(struct inode *inode)
> + {
> + 	int err;
> + retry:
> + 	err = filemap_write_and_wait(inode->i_mapping);
> + 	if (err && err == -EAGAIN)
> + 		goto retry;
> + 	return err;
> + }
> + 
>   #define get_inode_mode(i) \
>   	((is_inode_flag_set(i, FI_ACL_MODE)) ? \
>   	 (F2FS_I(i)->i_acl_mode) : ((i)->i_mode))

linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Jaegeuk,

Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in:

  fs/f2fs/f2fs.h

between commit:

  a7c3e901a46f ("mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  8e9a5c32d310 ("f2fs: support plain user/group quota")

from the f2fs 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/f2fs/f2fs.h
index fd2e651bad6d,0ca49e60002c..000000000000
--- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
+++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
@@@ -2074,6 -2155,36 +2158,16 @@@ static inline void *f2fs_kmalloc(struc
  	return kmalloc(size, flags);
  }
  
 -static inline void *f2fs_kvmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags)
 -{
 -	void *ret;
 -
 -	ret = kmalloc(size, flags | __GFP_NOWARN);
 -	if (!ret)
 -		ret = __vmalloc(size, flags, PAGE_KERNEL);
 -	return ret;
 -}
 -
 -static inline void *f2fs_kvzalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags)
 -{
 -	void *ret;
 -
 -	ret = kzalloc(size, flags | __GFP_NOWARN);
 -	if (!ret)
 -		ret = __vmalloc(size, flags | __GFP_ZERO, PAGE_KERNEL);
 -	return ret;
 -}
 -
+ static inline int f2fs_filemap_write_and_wait(struct inode *inode)
+ {
+ 	int err;
+ retry:
+ 	err = filemap_write_and_wait(inode->i_mapping);
+ 	if (err && err == -EAGAIN)
+ 		goto retry;
+ 	return err;
+ }
+ 
  #define get_inode_mode(i) \
  	((is_inode_flag_set(i, FI_ACL_MODE)) ? \
  	 (F2FS_I(i)->i_acl_mode) : ((i)->i_mode))