linux-next: manual merge of the folio tree with the fscache tree

linux-next: manual merge of the folio tree with the fscache tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 750 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c

between commit:

  405f4ff7f8a3 ("fscache: Remove the old I/O API")

from the fscache tree and commit:

  2e96a1a81b3f ("mm/filemap: Convert page wait queues to be folios")

from the folio tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed the file, so I did that) 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 folio tree with the fscache tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 942 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 13:54:21 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the folio tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   405f4ff7f8a3 ("fscache: Remove the old I/O API")
> 
> from the fscache tree and commit:
> 
>   2e96a1a81b3f ("mm/filemap: Convert page wait queues to be folios")
> 
> from the folio tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the former removed the file, so I did that) 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 Linus' tree and the fscache tree.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the folio tree with the fscache tree

[David Howells]

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> >   405f4ff7f8a3 ("fscache: Remove the old I/O API")

This branch is now obsolete.  I'm testing a replacement branch and will
hopefully push that to fscache-next this morning.

David

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the folio tree with the fscache tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2653 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 20:28:16 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the folio tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/afs/file.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0c31679cf2c0 ("netfs: Add a netfs inode context")
> 
> from the fscache tree and commits:
> 
>   7d165ab9d0a0 ("afs: Convert from launder_page to launder_folio")
>   09f7fc259e5d ("fscache: Convert fscache_set_page_dirty() to fscache_dirty_folio()")
> 
> from the folio 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 fs/afs/file.c
> index 2b68b2070248,0f9fdb284a20..000000000000
> --- a/fs/afs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/afs/file.c
> @@@ -19,11 -19,13 +19,11 @@@
>   #include "internal.h"
>   
>   static int afs_file_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma);
>  -static int afs_readpage(struct file *file, struct page *page);
>   static int afs_symlink_readpage(struct file *file, struct page *page);
> - static void afs_invalidatepage(struct page *page, unsigned int offset,
> - 			       unsigned int length);
> + static void afs_invalidate_folio(struct folio *folio, size_t offset,
> + 			       size_t length);
>   static int afs_releasepage(struct page *page, gfp_t gfp_flags);
>   
>  -static void afs_readahead(struct readahead_control *ractl);
>   static ssize_t afs_file_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter);
>   static void afs_vm_open(struct vm_area_struct *area);
>   static void afs_vm_close(struct vm_area_struct *area);
> @@@ -50,12 -52,12 +50,12 @@@ const struct inode_operations afs_file_
>   };
>   
>   const struct address_space_operations afs_file_aops = {
>  -	.readpage	= afs_readpage,
>  -	.readahead	= afs_readahead,
>  +	.readpage	= netfs_readpage,
>  +	.readahead	= netfs_readahead,
> - 	.set_page_dirty	= afs_set_page_dirty,
> - 	.launder_page	= afs_launder_page,
> + 	.dirty_folio	= afs_dirty_folio,
> + 	.launder_folio	= afs_launder_folio,
>   	.releasepage	= afs_releasepage,
> - 	.invalidatepage	= afs_invalidatepage,
> + 	.invalidate_folio = afs_invalidate_folio,
>   	.write_begin	= afs_write_begin,
>   	.write_end	= afs_write_end,
>   	.writepage	= afs_writepage,

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

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the folio tree with the fscache tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1565 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 20:25:12 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the folio tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/9p/vfs_addr.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0c31679cf2c0 ("netfs: Add a netfs inode context")
> 
> from the fscache tree and commit:
> 
>   09f7fc259e5d ("fscache: Convert fscache_set_page_dirty() to fscache_dirty_folio()")
> 
> from the folio 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 fs/9p/vfs_addr.c
> index ed06f3c34e98,76956c9d2af9..000000000000
> --- a/fs/9p/vfs_addr.c
> +++ b/fs/9p/vfs_addr.c
> @@@ -353,9 -370,9 +336,9 @@@ static bool v9fs_dirty_folio(struct add
>   #endif
>   
>   const struct address_space_operations v9fs_addr_operations = {
>  -	.readpage = v9fs_vfs_readpage,
>  -	.readahead = v9fs_vfs_readahead,
>  +	.readpage = netfs_readpage,
>  +	.readahead = netfs_readahead,
> - 	.set_page_dirty = v9fs_set_page_dirty,
> + 	.dirty_folio = v9fs_dirty_folio,
>   	.writepage = v9fs_vfs_writepage,
>   	.write_begin = v9fs_write_begin,
>   	.write_end = v9fs_write_end,

This is now a conflict between the fscache 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 folio tree with the fscache tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2375 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  fs/afs/file.c

between commit:

  0c31679cf2c0 ("netfs: Add a netfs inode context")

from the fscache tree and commits:

  7d165ab9d0a0 ("afs: Convert from launder_page to launder_folio")
  09f7fc259e5d ("fscache: Convert fscache_set_page_dirty() to fscache_dirty_folio()")

from the folio 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/afs/file.c
index 2b68b2070248,0f9fdb284a20..000000000000
--- a/fs/afs/file.c
+++ b/fs/afs/file.c
@@@ -19,11 -19,13 +19,11 @@@
  #include "internal.h"
  
  static int afs_file_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma);
 -static int afs_readpage(struct file *file, struct page *page);
  static int afs_symlink_readpage(struct file *file, struct page *page);
- static void afs_invalidatepage(struct page *page, unsigned int offset,
- 			       unsigned int length);
+ static void afs_invalidate_folio(struct folio *folio, size_t offset,
+ 			       size_t length);
  static int afs_releasepage(struct page *page, gfp_t gfp_flags);
  
 -static void afs_readahead(struct readahead_control *ractl);
  static ssize_t afs_file_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter);
  static void afs_vm_open(struct vm_area_struct *area);
  static void afs_vm_close(struct vm_area_struct *area);
@@@ -50,12 -52,12 +50,12 @@@ const struct inode_operations afs_file_
  };
  
  const struct address_space_operations afs_file_aops = {
 -	.readpage	= afs_readpage,
 -	.readahead	= afs_readahead,
 +	.readpage	= netfs_readpage,
 +	.readahead	= netfs_readahead,
- 	.set_page_dirty	= afs_set_page_dirty,
- 	.launder_page	= afs_launder_page,
+ 	.dirty_folio	= afs_dirty_folio,
+ 	.launder_folio	= afs_launder_folio,
  	.releasepage	= afs_releasepage,
- 	.invalidatepage	= afs_invalidatepage,
+ 	.invalidate_folio = afs_invalidate_folio,
  	.write_begin	= afs_write_begin,
  	.write_end	= afs_write_end,
  	.writepage	= afs_writepage,

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

linux-next: manual merge of the folio tree with the fscache tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1331 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  fs/9p/vfs_addr.c

between commit:

  0c31679cf2c0 ("netfs: Add a netfs inode context")

from the fscache tree and commit:

  09f7fc259e5d ("fscache: Convert fscache_set_page_dirty() to fscache_dirty_folio()")

from the folio 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/9p/vfs_addr.c
index ed06f3c34e98,76956c9d2af9..000000000000
--- a/fs/9p/vfs_addr.c
+++ b/fs/9p/vfs_addr.c
@@@ -353,9 -370,9 +336,9 @@@ static bool v9fs_dirty_folio(struct add
  #endif
  
  const struct address_space_operations v9fs_addr_operations = {
 -	.readpage = v9fs_vfs_readpage,
 -	.readahead = v9fs_vfs_readahead,
 +	.readpage = netfs_readpage,
 +	.readahead = netfs_readahead,
- 	.set_page_dirty = v9fs_set_page_dirty,
+ 	.dirty_folio = v9fs_dirty_folio,
  	.writepage = v9fs_vfs_writepage,
  	.write_begin = v9fs_write_begin,
  	.write_end = v9fs_write_end,

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