* linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-miklos tree with the overlayfs tree and build failure
@ 2017-01-31 0:16 Stephen Rothwell
2017-01-31 6:47 ` Amir Goldstein
2017-02-02 22:34 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2017-01-31 0:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Miklos Szeredi; +Cc: linux-next, linux-kernel, Amir Goldstein
Hi Miklos,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-miklos tree got a conflict in:
fs/read_write.c
between commit:
97e147358bea ("vfs: wrap write f_ops with file_{start,end}_write()")
from the overlayfs tree and various duplicated patches between v4.10-rc1
and the vfs-miklos tree.
Please clean up the vfs-miklos 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.
I then got this build failure from my arm multi_v7_defconfig build:
In file included from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/seq_file.h:10:0,
from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/pinctrl/consumer.h:17,
from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/pinctrl/devinfo.h:21,
from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/device.h:24,
from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/dma-mapping.h:6,
from /home/sfr/next/next/arch/arm/kernel/asm-offsets.c:16:
/home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/fs.h:2566:19: error: redefinition of 'do_clone
_file_range'
static inline int do_clone_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
^
/home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/fs.h:1743:19: note: previous definition of 'do_clone_file_range' was here
static inline int do_clone_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
^
so I decided to just drop the vfs-miklos tree for today.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-miklos tree with the overlayfs tree and build failure
2017-01-31 0:16 linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-miklos tree with the overlayfs tree and build failure Stephen Rothwell
@ 2017-01-31 6:47 ` Amir Goldstein
2017-01-31 10:38 ` Stephen Rothwell
2017-02-02 22:34 ` Stephen Rothwell
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Amir Goldstein @ 2017-01-31 6:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: Miklos Szeredi, linux-next, linux-kernel
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Miklos,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-miklos tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/read_write.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 97e147358bea ("vfs: wrap write f_ops with file_{start,end}_write()")
>
> from the overlayfs tree and various duplicated patches between v4.10-rc1
> and the vfs-miklos tree.
>
That's strange.
overlayfs-next whose head is the for mentioned commit is based on
v4.10-rc6 and has no duplicated patches AFAICS
Perhaps you are referring to the similar named patch:
3616119 vfs: no mnt_want_write_file() in vfs_{copy,clone}_file_range()
Miklos has converted mnt_want_write_file() => sb_start_write() for v4.10-rc1
and my change converts it again sb_start_write() => file_start_write(),
which is mostly a semantic difference, but with some implications.
> Please clean up the vfs-miklos 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.
>
> I then got this build failure from my arm multi_v7_defconfig build:
>
> In file included from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/seq_file.h:10:0,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/pinctrl/consumer.h:17,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/pinctrl/devinfo.h:21,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/device.h:24,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/dma-mapping.h:6,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/arch/arm/kernel/asm-offsets.c:16:
> /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/fs.h:2566:19: error: redefinition of 'do_clone
> _file_range'
> static inline int do_clone_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> ^
> /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/fs.h:1743:19: note: previous definition of 'do_clone_file_range' was here
> static inline int do_clone_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> ^
>
Please note that my patch moves do_clone_file_range() from line 1743
to line 2566,
because it needs to use file_start_write(), which is defined in line 2533.
so perhaps the conflict was not resolved correctly?
> so I decided to just drop the vfs-miklos tree for today.
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-miklos tree with the overlayfs tree and build failure
2017-01-31 6:47 ` Amir Goldstein
@ 2017-01-31 10:38 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2017-01-31 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Amir Goldstein; +Cc: Miklos Szeredi, linux-next, linux-kernel
Hi Amir,
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:47:43 +0200 Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's strange.
> overlayfs-next whose head is the for mentioned commit is based on
> v4.10-rc6 and has no duplicated patches AFAICS
The duplicate patches are between v4.10-rc1 and the vfs-miklos tree and
the overlayfs tree includes v4.10-rc1, so there is interactions there.
> Please note that my patch moves do_clone_file_range() from line 1743
> to line 2566,
> because it needs to use file_start_write(), which is defined in line 2533.
> so perhaps the conflict was not resolved correctly?
That is probably what happened, but if the vfs-miklos tree is cleaned
up, these conflicts will all go away.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-miklos tree with the overlayfs tree and build failure
2017-01-31 0:16 linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-miklos tree with the overlayfs tree and build failure Stephen Rothwell
2017-01-31 6:47 ` Amir Goldstein
@ 2017-02-02 22:34 ` Stephen Rothwell
2017-02-03 8:35 ` Miklos Szeredi
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2017-02-02 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Miklos Szeredi; +Cc: linux-next, linux-kernel, Amir Goldstein
Hi Miklos,
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:16:56 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-miklos tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/read_write.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 97e147358bea ("vfs: wrap write f_ops with file_{start,end}_write()")
>
> from the overlayfs tree and various duplicated patches between v4.10-rc1
> and the vfs-miklos tree.
>
> Please clean up the vfs-miklos 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.
>
> I then got this build failure from my arm multi_v7_defconfig build:
>
> In file included from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/seq_file.h:10:0,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/pinctrl/consumer.h:17,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/pinctrl/devinfo.h:21,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/device.h:24,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/dma-mapping.h:6,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/arch/arm/kernel/asm-offsets.c:16:
> /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/fs.h:2566:19: error: redefinition of 'do_clone
> _file_range'
> static inline int do_clone_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> ^
> /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/fs.h:1743:19: note: previous definition of 'do_clone_file_range' was here
> static inline int do_clone_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> ^
>
> so I decided to just drop the vfs-miklos tree for today.
This mess is still there ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-miklos tree with the overlayfs tree and build failure
2017-02-02 22:34 ` Stephen Rothwell
@ 2017-02-03 8:35 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-02-03 9:03 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Miklos Szeredi @ 2017-02-03 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: linux-next, linux-kernel, Amir Goldstein
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Miklos,
>
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:16:56 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-miklos tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> fs/read_write.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 97e147358bea ("vfs: wrap write f_ops with file_{start,end}_write()")
>>
>> from the overlayfs tree and various duplicated patches between v4.10-rc1
>> and the vfs-miklos tree.
>>
>> Please clean up the vfs-miklos 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.
>>
>> I then got this build failure from my arm multi_v7_defconfig build:
>>
>> In file included from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/seq_file.h:10:0,
>> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/pinctrl/consumer.h:17,
>> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/pinctrl/devinfo.h:21,
>> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/device.h:24,
>> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/dma-mapping.h:6,
>> from /home/sfr/next/next/arch/arm/kernel/asm-offsets.c:16:
>> /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/fs.h:2566:19: error: redefinition of 'do_clone
>> _file_range'
>> static inline int do_clone_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
>> ^
>> /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/fs.h:1743:19: note: previous definition of 'do_clone_file_range' was here
>> static inline int do_clone_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
>> ^
>>
>> so I decided to just drop the vfs-miklos tree for today.
>
> This mess is still there ...
Sorry, I removed the conflicting content from that tree.
Thanks,
Miklos
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-miklos tree with the overlayfs tree and build failure
2017-02-03 8:35 ` Miklos Szeredi
@ 2017-02-03 9:03 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2017-02-03 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Miklos Szeredi; +Cc: linux-next, linux-kernel, Amir Goldstein
Hi Miklos,
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:35:09 +0100 Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I removed the conflicting content from that tree.
Excellent, thanks.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-02-03 9:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-01-31 0:16 linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-miklos tree with the overlayfs tree and build failure Stephen Rothwell
2017-01-31 6:47 ` Amir Goldstein
2017-01-31 10:38 ` Stephen Rothwell
2017-02-02 22:34 ` Stephen Rothwell
2017-02-03 8:35 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-02-03 9:03 ` Stephen Rothwell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).