From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752334AbdGUNuu (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:50:50 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:57023 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750762AbdGUNus (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:50:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:49:31 +0200 From: David Sterba To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jens Axboe , Chris Mason Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs-kdave tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20170721134931.GH2866@suse.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz Mail-Followup-To: dsterba@suse.cz, Stephen Rothwell , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jens Axboe , Chris Mason References: <20170718101802.720dab22@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170718101802.720dab22@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:18:02AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi David, > > Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs-kdave tree got a conflict in: > > fs/btrfs/extent_io.c > > between commit: > > e6959b9350c6 ("btrfs: add support for passing in write hints for buffered writes") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > 41a3f2a7c062 ("btrfs: merge REQ_OP and REQ_ flags to one parameter in submit_extent_page") > > from the btrfs-kdave 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. > > You should probably consider rebasing your for-next branch onto (at > least v4.13-rc1) (or merging v4.13-rc1) to save these sort of > (unnecessary) conflicts being ongoing during development and the next > merge window. tl;dr I'm going to rebase for-next to 4.12 again I've started rebasing on top of rc1 but found that several tests double the run time. I've observed something similar already during the merge window when testing master + pull request branch. The submit bio calls were particularly visible in the stacks so I'm suspecting some block layer related change or my system is misconfigured. In order to be able to debug the problems further, I need a branch that will reproduce the good results. For that reason I'll rebase back my for-next branche to the 4.12-rc7. The following merge conflict will reappear. > diff --cc fs/btrfs/extent_io.c > index 0aff9b278c19,ead9e731e01b..000000000000 > --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c > @@@ -2803,8 -2801,7 +2805,8 @@@ static int submit_extent_page(unsigned > bio_add_page(bio, page, page_size, offset); > bio->bi_end_io = end_io_func; > bio->bi_private = tree; > + bio->bi_write_hint = page->mapping->host->i_write_hint; > - bio_set_op_attrs(bio, op, op_flags); > + bio->bi_opf = opf; > if (wbc) { > wbc_init_bio(wbc, bio); > wbc_account_io(wbc, page, page_size);