linux-next: manual merge of the mtd tree with the vfs-brauner tree

linux-next: manual merge of the mtd tree with the vfs-brauner tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 761 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c

between commit:

  1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")

from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:

  ff6abbe85634 ("mtd: block2mtd: Add a valid holder to blkdev_put()")

from the mtd tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the former) 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 mtd tree with the vfs-brauner tree

[Miquel Raynal]

Hi,

sfr@canb.auug.org.au wrote on Mon, 30 Oct 2023 10:34:15 +1100:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the mtd tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")

I haven't seen this commit, I was not Cc'ed.

> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> 
>   ff6abbe85634 ("mtd: block2mtd: Add a valid holder to blkdev_put()")

I will drop this commit from mtd/next. Please take it through the
vfs-brauner tree as well to avoid conflicts or otherwise, Richard, can
you send an update at -rc1?

Thanks,
Miquèl

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

[Richard Weinberger]

----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the mtd tree got a conflict in:
>> 
>>   drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
>> 
>> between commit:
>> 
>>   1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> 
> I haven't seen this commit, I was not Cc'ed.

Me neither. :-/
 
>> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
>> 
>>   ff6abbe85634 ("mtd: block2mtd: Add a valid holder to blkdev_put()")
> 
> I will drop this commit from mtd/next. Please take it through the
> vfs-brauner tree as well to avoid conflicts or otherwise, Richard, can
> you send an update at -rc1?

A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.

I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable releases.
Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is large.
On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree and therefore
is not suitable for stable either.

Thanks,
//richard

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

[Jan Kara]

On Mon 30-10-23 21:11:36, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > Von: "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the mtd tree got a conflict in:
> >> 
> >>   drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
> >> 
> >> between commit:
> >> 
> >>   1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> > 
> > I haven't seen this commit, I was not Cc'ed.
> 
> Me neither. :-/

I'm sorry for that but I took the maintainers entry for BLOCK2MTD which is:

BLOCK2MTD DRIVER
M:      Joern Engel <joern@lazybastard.org>
L:      linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
S:      Maintained
F:      drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c

And both Joern and linux-mtd were CCed on the patch. If different people
should be CCed these days, please update the entry. Thanks!

> >> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> >> 
> >>   ff6abbe85634 ("mtd: block2mtd: Add a valid holder to blkdev_put()")
> > 
> > I will drop this commit from mtd/next. Please take it through the
> > vfs-brauner tree as well to avoid conflicts or otherwise, Richard, can
> > you send an update at -rc1?
> 
> A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.
> 
> I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable releases.
> Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is large.
> On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree and therefore
> is not suitable for stable either.

Yes, that's one of the cases where stable rules make life harder for actual
fixes... You can try pushing ff6abbe85634 to stable even if it is not
upstream since it fixes a real bug and taking the upstream solution is
indeed IMO too intrusive. Sometimes stable maintainers accept such fixes.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

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

[Richard Weinberger]

Jan,

----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>> >>   1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
>> > 
>> > I haven't seen this commit, I was not Cc'ed.
>> 
>> Me neither. :-/
> 
> I'm sorry for that but I took the maintainers entry for BLOCK2MTD which is:
> 
> BLOCK2MTD DRIVER
> M:      Joern Engel <joern@lazybastard.org>
> L:      linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
> S:      Maintained
> F:      drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
> 
> And both Joern and linux-mtd were CCed on the patch. If different people
> should be CCed these days, please update the entry. Thanks!

Ah, you did a manual lookup?
Because get_maintainer.pl seems to do the right thing:

$ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
Joern Engel <joern@lazybastard.org> (maintainer:BLOCK2MTD DRIVER)
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org (open list:BLOCK2MTD DRIVER)
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list)
 
>> >> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
>> >> 
>> >>   ff6abbe85634 ("mtd: block2mtd: Add a valid holder to blkdev_put()")
>> > 
>> > I will drop this commit from mtd/next. Please take it through the
>> > vfs-brauner tree as well to avoid conflicts or otherwise, Richard, can
>> > you send an update at -rc1?
>> 
>> A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to
>> bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
>> is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.
>> 
>> I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable releases.
>> Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is large.
>> On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree and therefore
>> is not suitable for stable either.
> 
> Yes, that's one of the cases where stable rules make life harder for actual
> fixes... You can try pushing ff6abbe85634 to stable even if it is not
> upstream since it fixes a real bug and taking the upstream solution is
> indeed IMO too intrusive. Sometimes stable maintainers accept such fixes.

Yep, let's try this route. :-)

Thanks,
//richard

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

[Christian Brauner]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 10:02:10AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Jan,
> 
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> >> >>   1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> >> > 
> >> > I haven't seen this commit, I was not Cc'ed.
> >> 
> >> Me neither. :-/
> > 
> > I'm sorry for that but I took the maintainers entry for BLOCK2MTD which is:
> > 
> > BLOCK2MTD DRIVER
> > M:      Joern Engel <joern@lazybastard.org>
> > L:      linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
> > S:      Maintained
> > F:      drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
> > 
> > And both Joern and linux-mtd were CCed on the patch. If different people
> > should be CCed these days, please update the entry. Thanks!
> 
> Ah, you did a manual lookup?
> Because get_maintainer.pl seems to do the right thing:
> 
> $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
> Joern Engel <joern@lazybastard.org> (maintainer:BLOCK2MTD DRIVER)
> Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
> Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
> Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
> linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org (open list:BLOCK2MTD DRIVER)
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list)
>  
> >> >> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> >> >> 
> >> >>   ff6abbe85634 ("mtd: block2mtd: Add a valid holder to blkdev_put()")
> >> > 
> >> > I will drop this commit from mtd/next. Please take it through the
> >> > vfs-brauner tree as well to avoid conflicts or otherwise, Richard, can
> >> > you send an update at -rc1?
> >> 
> >> A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to
> >> bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> >> is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.
> >> 
> >> I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable releases.
> >> Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is large.
> >> On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree and therefore
> >> is not suitable for stable either.
> > 
> > Yes, that's one of the cases where stable rules make life harder for actual
> > fixes... You can try pushing ff6abbe85634 to stable even if it is not
> > upstream since it fixes a real bug and taking the upstream solution is
> > indeed IMO too intrusive. Sometimes stable maintainers accept such fixes.
> 
> Yep, let's try this route. :-)

Is there anything for me to do? IOW, do I need to grab that patch or
not? :)

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

[Richard Weinberger]

Christian,

----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Christian Brauner" <brauner@kernel.org>
>> >> A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to
>> >> bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
>> >> is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.
>> >> 
>> >> I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable releases.
>> >> Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is large.
>> >> On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree and therefore
>> >> is not suitable for stable either.
>> > 
>> > Yes, that's one of the cases where stable rules make life harder for actual
>> > fixes... You can try pushing ff6abbe85634 to stable even if it is not
>> > upstream since it fixes a real bug and taking the upstream solution is
>> > indeed IMO too intrusive. Sometimes stable maintainers accept such fixes.
>> 
>> Yep, let's try this route. :-)
> 
> Is there anything for me to do? IOW, do I need to grab that patch or
> not? :)

No, just keep Jan's patch. (-:

Miquel, we could also keep ff6abbe85634 in the mtd tree and explain Linus the
conflict, what do you think? That would help with back porting to stable.

Thanks,
//richard

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

[Jan Kara]

On Tue 31-10-23 10:02:10, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Jan,
> 
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> >> >>   1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> >> > 
> >> > I haven't seen this commit, I was not Cc'ed.
> >> 
> >> Me neither. :-/
> > 
> > I'm sorry for that but I took the maintainers entry for BLOCK2MTD which is:
> > 
> > BLOCK2MTD DRIVER
> > M:      Joern Engel <joern@lazybastard.org>
> > L:      linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
> > S:      Maintained
> > F:      drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
> > 
> > And both Joern and linux-mtd were CCed on the patch. If different people
> > should be CCed these days, please update the entry. Thanks!
> 
> Ah, you did a manual lookup?

Yes.

> Because get_maintainer.pl seems to do the right thing:
> 
> $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
> Joern Engel <joern@lazybastard.org> (maintainer:BLOCK2MTD DRIVER)
> Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
> Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
> Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
> linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org (open list:BLOCK2MTD DRIVER)
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list)

Hum, right. I didn't realize there could be multiple entries matching one
file. My mistake.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

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

[Miquel Raynal]

Hi Richard,

richard@nod.at wrote on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 12:30:40 +0100 (CET):

> Christian,
> 
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > Von: "Christian Brauner" <brauner@kernel.org>  
> >> >> A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to
> >> >> bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> >> >> is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.
> >> >> 
> >> >> I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable releases.
> >> >> Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is large.
> >> >> On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree and therefore
> >> >> is not suitable for stable either.  
> >> > 
> >> > Yes, that's one of the cases where stable rules make life harder for actual
> >> > fixes... You can try pushing ff6abbe85634 to stable even if it is not
> >> > upstream since it fixes a real bug and taking the upstream solution is
> >> > indeed IMO too intrusive. Sometimes stable maintainers accept such fixes.  
> >> 
> >> Yep, let's try this route. :-)  
> > 
> > Is there anything for me to do? IOW, do I need to grab that patch or
> > not? :)  
> 
> No, just keep Jan's patch. (-:
> 
> Miquel, we could also keep ff6abbe85634 in the mtd tree and explain Linus the
> conflict, what do you think? That would help with back porting to stable.

It's not relevant if the patch in Brauner's tree is already fixing this
up. Just send the smaller patch to stable@vger.kernel.org asking them to
backport this patch instead of the other one, they are used to this
kind of constraint, no?

Miquèl

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

[Richard Weinberger]

----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
>> Miquel, we could also keep ff6abbe85634 in the mtd tree and explain Linus the
>> conflict, what do you think? That would help with back porting to stable.
> 
> It's not relevant if the patch in Brauner's tree is already fixing this
> up. Just send the smaller patch to stable@vger.kernel.org asking them to
> backport this patch instead of the other one, they are used to this
> kind of constraint, no?

I'm just in fear of stable rule #1.
"It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream)."

Anyway, I'll try.

Thanks,
//richard

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

[Miquel Raynal]

richard@nod.at wrote on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:13:53 +0100 (CET):

> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > Von: "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>  
> >> Miquel, we could also keep ff6abbe85634 in the mtd tree and explain Linus the
> >> conflict, what do you think? That would help with back porting to stable.  
> > 
> > It's not relevant if the patch in Brauner's tree is already fixing this
> > up. Just send the smaller patch to stable@vger.kernel.org asking them to
> > backport this patch instead of the other one, they are used to this
> > kind of constraint, no?  
> 
> I'm just in fear of stable rule #1.
> "It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream)."

It should be very soon, the merge window is open ;)

Cheers,
Miquèl

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

[Christian Brauner]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 02:50:06PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> 
> richard@nod.at wrote on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:13:53 +0100 (CET):
> 
> > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > > Von: "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>  
> > >> Miquel, we could also keep ff6abbe85634 in the mtd tree and explain Linus the
> > >> conflict, what do you think? That would help with back porting to stable.  
> > > 
> > > It's not relevant if the patch in Brauner's tree is already fixing this
> > > up. Just send the smaller patch to stable@vger.kernel.org asking them to
> > > backport this patch instead of the other one, they are used to this
> > > kind of constraint, no?  
> > 
> > I'm just in fear of stable rule #1.
> > "It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream)."
> 
> It should be very soon, the merge window is open ;)

vfs-6.7.super was merged yesterday, if that's what this is about.

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

[Miquel Raynal]

Hi Christian,

brauner@kernel.org wrote on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 15:25:19 +0100:

> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 02:50:06PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > 
> > richard@nod.at wrote on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:13:53 +0100 (CET):
> >   
> > > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----  
> > > > Von: "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>    
> > > >> Miquel, we could also keep ff6abbe85634 in the mtd tree and explain Linus the
> > > >> conflict, what do you think? That would help with back porting to stable.    
> > > > 
> > > > It's not relevant if the patch in Brauner's tree is already fixing this
> > > > up. Just send the smaller patch to stable@vger.kernel.org asking them to
> > > > backport this patch instead of the other one, they are used to this
> > > > kind of constraint, no?    
> > > 
> > > I'm just in fear of stable rule #1.
> > > "It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream)."  
> > 
> > It should be very soon, the merge window is open ;)  
> 
> vfs-6.7.super was merged yesterday, if that's what this is about.

Great, thanks for the confirmation. Then Richard you have your upstream
commit already!

Thanks,
Miquèl

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

[Richard Weinberger]

----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
>> vfs-6.7.super was merged yesterday, if that's what this is about.
> 
> Great, thanks for the confirmation. Then Richard you have your upstream
> commit already!

Well, I'd like to back port ff6abbe85634, which is not upstream.
But I'll try to argue that ff6abbe85634 is the super simple variant of 1bcded92d938.

Thanks,
//richard