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

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2155 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  drivers/block/loop.c

between commit:

  efbe3c2493d2 ("fs: Remove unneeded IS_DAX() check in io_is_direct()")

from the djw-vfs tree and commit:

  3448914e8cc5 ("loop: Add LOOP_CONFIGURE ioctl")

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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/block/loop.c
index 14372df0f354,a565c5aafa52..000000000000
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@@ -1022,21 -1146,20 +1146,21 @@@ static int loop_configure(struct loop_d
  	lo->old_gfp_mask = mapping_gfp_mask(mapping);
  	mapping_set_gfp_mask(mapping, lo->old_gfp_mask & ~(__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS));
  
- 	if (!(lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_READ_ONLY) && file->f_op->fsync)
+ 	if (!(lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_READ_ONLY) && file->f_op->fsync)
  		blk_queue_write_cache(lo->lo_queue, true, false);
  
- 	if ((lo->lo_backing_file->f_flags & O_DIRECT) && inode->i_sb->s_bdev) {
+ 	if (config->block_size)
+ 		bsize = config->block_size;
 -	else if (io_is_direct(lo->lo_backing_file) && inode->i_sb->s_bdev)
++	else if ((lo->lo_backing_file->f_flags & O_DIRECT) &&
++		 inode->i_sb->s_bdev)
  		/* In case of direct I/O, match underlying block size */
- 		unsigned short bsize = bdev_logical_block_size(
- 			inode->i_sb->s_bdev);
+ 		bsize = bdev_logical_block_size(inode->i_sb->s_bdev);
+ 	else
+ 		bsize = 512;
  
- 		blk_queue_logical_block_size(lo->lo_queue, bsize);
- 		blk_queue_physical_block_size(lo->lo_queue, bsize);
- 		blk_queue_io_min(lo->lo_queue, bsize);
- 	}
+ 	blk_queue_logical_block_size(lo->lo_queue, bsize);
+ 	blk_queue_physical_block_size(lo->lo_queue, bsize);
+ 	blk_queue_io_min(lo->lo_queue, bsize);
  
  	loop_update_rotational(lo);
  	loop_update_dio(lo);

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

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

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 11:28:30AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/super.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   880b9577855e ("fs: distinguish between user initiated freeze and kernel initiated freeze")
> 
> from the djw-vfs tree and commit:
> 
>   4a8b719f95c0 ("fs: remove emergency_thaw_bdev")
> 
> 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.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc fs/super.c
> index edc588bca7fc,bc666e7ee1a9..000000000000
> --- a/fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/super.c
> @@@ -1029,8 -1029,10 +1029,10 @@@ static void do_thaw_all_callback(struc
>   {
>   	down_write(&sb->s_umount);
>   	if (sb->s_root && sb->s_flags & SB_BORN) {
> - 		emergency_thaw_bdev(sb);
> + 		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLOCK))
> + 			while (sb->s_bdev && !thaw_bdev(sb->s_bdev))
> + 				pr_warn("Emergency Thaw on %pg\n", sb->s_bdev);
>  -		thaw_super_locked(sb);
>  +		thaw_super_locked(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE);

Looks correct to me!  Thanks for the heads up.

--D

>   	} else {
>   		up_write(&sb->s_umount);
>   	}

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1295 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  fs/super.c

between commit:

  880b9577855e ("fs: distinguish between user initiated freeze and kernel initiated freeze")

from the djw-vfs tree and commit:

  4a8b719f95c0 ("fs: remove emergency_thaw_bdev")

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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc fs/super.c
index edc588bca7fc,bc666e7ee1a9..000000000000
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@@ -1029,8 -1029,10 +1029,10 @@@ static void do_thaw_all_callback(struc
  {
  	down_write(&sb->s_umount);
  	if (sb->s_root && sb->s_flags & SB_BORN) {
- 		emergency_thaw_bdev(sb);
+ 		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLOCK))
+ 			while (sb->s_bdev && !thaw_bdev(sb->s_bdev))
+ 				pr_warn("Emergency Thaw on %pg\n", sb->s_bdev);
 -		thaw_super_locked(sb);
 +		thaw_super_locked(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE);
  	} else {
  		up_write(&sb->s_umount);
  	}

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