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

[Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>]

On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 10:36:35AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 7/13/22 8:08 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   block/bio.c
> > 
> > between commits:
> > 
> >   35006342b739 ("block: ensure iov_iter advances for added pages")
> >   248022ffae3f ("block: ensure bio_iov_add_page can't fail")
> >   7b1ccdf617ca ("block: fix leaking page ref on truncated direct io")
> >   9a6469060316 ("block: convert to advancing variants of iov_iter_get_pages{,_alloc}()")
> > 
> > from the vfs tree and commits:
> > 
> >   5a044eef1265 ("block: ensure iov_iter advances for added pages")
> >   ac3c48e32c04 ("block: ensure bio_iov_add_page can't fail")
> >   44b6b0b0e980 ("block: fix leaking page ref on truncated direct io")
> > 
> > from the block tree.
> 
> I pinged Al about this the other day, but haven't heard back yet. It's
> not clear to me what block bits he has in his tree. We'll get it sorted
> out.

Ones from Keith's branch - #alignment-fixes-rebased in there.  Looks like
one of the commits in it got changed since then - the difference in
__bio_iov_iter_get_pages() (unsigned int i initialization).

Sigh...  I'll rebase on top of that.

Al, digging through the vicinity of propagate_umount() and cursing himself
and ebiederman in about equal proportions since the last weekend...