linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs tree

linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 696 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the gfs2 tree got conflicts in:

  Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
  include/linux/uio.h
  lib/iov_iter.c

between various commits from the vfs tree and the same, older version,
of the commits from the gfs2 tree.

I fixed it up (I used the vfs tree versions) 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs tree

[Al Viro]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:12:31AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the gfs2 tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
>   include/linux/uio.h
>   lib/iov_iter.c
> 
> between various commits from the vfs tree and the same, older version,
> of the commits from the gfs2 tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I used the vfs tree versions) 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.

IMO iov_iter_fault_in_writeable() is a bloody bad idea to start with...

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs tree

[Andreas Gruenbacher]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 3:46 AM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:12:31AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the gfs2 tree got conflicts in:
> >
> >   Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
> >   include/linux/uio.h
> >   lib/iov_iter.c
> >
> > between various commits from the vfs tree and the same, older version,
> > of the commits from the gfs2 tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I used the vfs tree versions) 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.
>
> IMO iov_iter_fault_in_writeable() is a bloody bad idea to start with...

It seems that we need a mechanism for faulting in a page in for
writing. It's ugly that iov_iter_fault_in_writeable() writes to the
page for faulting it in, and if the operation that the page was
faulted in for then fails, those writes will be visible. Would an
implementation that reads and then writes back the same value be less
bloody bad?

Thanks,
Andreas

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1057 bytes --]

Hi Steven,

On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:12:31 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the gfs2 tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
>   include/linux/uio.h
>   lib/iov_iter.c
> 
> between various commits from the vfs tree and the same, older version,
> of the commits from the gfs2 tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I used the vfs tree versions) 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 got more conflicts today.

Can we please get that (old, buggy) version of this topic branch
removed from the gfs2 tree (and replaced with a merge of the new less
buggy version (assuming Al will guarantee that it won't change again).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs tree

[Andreas Gruenbacher]

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 3:38 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:12:31 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the gfs2 tree got conflicts in:
> >
> >   Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
> >   include/linux/uio.h
> >   lib/iov_iter.c
> >
> > between various commits from the vfs tree and the same, older version,
> > of the commits from the gfs2 tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I used the vfs tree versions) 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 got more conflicts today.
>
> Can we please get that (old, buggy) version of this topic branch
> removed from the gfs2 tree

Done.

Thanks,
Andreas

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]

Hi Andreas,

On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 08:48:32 +0200 Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Done.

Thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1879 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the gfs2 tree got conflicts in:

  include/linux/uio.h
  lib/iov_iter.c

between commit:

  c8129a6f6ed1 ("sanitize iov_iter_fault_in_readable()")

from the vfs tree and commit:

  f8524fce6a88 ("iov_iter: Add iov_iter_fault_in_writeable()")

from the gfs2 tree.

I fixed it up (see below - both commits fixed up the indentation in
iov_iter_fault_in_readable()) 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 include/linux/uio.h
index fd88d9911dad,6811eb6ac6e3..000000000000
--- a/include/linux/uio.h
+++ b/include/linux/uio.h
@@@ -115,11 -119,12 +115,12 @@@ static inline struct iovec iov_iter_iov
  	};
  }
  
 -size_t iov_iter_copy_from_user_atomic(struct page *page,
 -		struct iov_iter *i, unsigned long offset, size_t bytes);
 +size_t copy_page_from_iter_atomic(struct page *page, unsigned offset,
 +				  size_t bytes, struct iov_iter *i);
  void iov_iter_advance(struct iov_iter *i, size_t bytes);
  void iov_iter_revert(struct iov_iter *i, size_t bytes);
 -int iov_iter_fault_in_readable(struct iov_iter *i, size_t bytes);
 +int iov_iter_fault_in_readable(const struct iov_iter *i, size_t bytes);
+ int iov_iter_fault_in_writeable(struct iov_iter *i, size_t bytes);
  size_t iov_iter_single_seg_count(const struct iov_iter *i);
  size_t copy_page_to_iter(struct page *page, size_t offset, size_t bytes,
  			 struct iov_iter *i);
diff --cc lib/iov_iter.c
index 8842ca6995c3,317c94eac907..000000000000
--- a/lib/iov_iter.c
+++ b/lib/iov_iter.c

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 966 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 13:48:42 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the gfs2 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/gfs2/super.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   000c8e591016 ("gfs2: Convert gfs2 to fs_context")
> 
> from the vfs tree and commit:
> 
>   5b3a9f348bc5 ("gfs2: kthread and remount improvements")
> 
> from the gfs2 tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the vfs tree version since it removed some of
> 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.

This is now a conflict between the vfs tree and Linus' tree.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 781 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the gfs2 tree got a conflict in:

  fs/gfs2/super.c

between commit:

  000c8e591016 ("gfs2: Convert gfs2 to fs_context")

from the vfs tree and commit:

  5b3a9f348bc5 ("gfs2: kthread and remount improvements")

from the gfs2 tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the vfs tree version since it removed some of
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.



-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 833 bytes --]

Hi Steven,

Today's linux-next merge of the gfs2 tree got a conflict in
fs/gfs2/super.c between commit 716c28c0bc8bcbdd26e819f38dfc8fdfaafc0289
("pass writeback_control to ->write_inode") from the vfs tree and commit
56c79d55103b5d0943e063d036e7ebf8a7a1c21b ("GFS2: Wait for unlock
completion on umount") from the gfs2 tree.

Just simple overlapping additions.  I fixed up (see below) and can carry
the fix as necessary.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc fs/gfs2/super.c
index effa35a,e2bf19f..0000000
--- a/fs/gfs2/super.c
+++ b/fs/gfs2/super.c
@@@ -21,7 -21,7 +21,8 @@@
  #include <linux/gfs2_ondisk.h>
  #include <linux/crc32.h>
  #include <linux/time.h>
 +#include <linux/writeback.h>
+ #include <linux/wait.h>
  
  #include "gfs2.h"
  #include "incore.h"

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]