From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752165AbdGXAyn (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Jul 2017 20:54:43 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:41983 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751646AbdGXAye (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Jul 2017 20:54:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:54:31 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: David Sterba Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs-kdave tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20170724105431.675fb3a3@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi David, Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs-kdave tree got a conflict in: fs/btrfs/scrub.c between commit: 4e4cbee93d56 ("block: switch bios to blk_status_t") from Linus' tree and commit: 26397a4ad1d5 ("btrfs: account that we're waiting for IO in scrub_submit_raid56_bio_wait") 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. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell diff --cc fs/btrfs/scrub.c index 6f1e4c984b94,7bce7b43c48b..000000000000 --- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c @@@ -1704,8 -1704,8 +1704,8 @@@ static int scrub_submit_raid56_bio_wait if (ret) return ret; - wait_for_completion(&done.event); + wait_for_completion_io(&done.event); - if (done.error) + if (done.status) return -EIO; return 0;