From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CDE0C43387 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:39:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CDB220859 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:39:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388463AbfAPHjh (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2019 02:39:37 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46800 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727667AbfAPHjh (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2019 02:39:37 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9559058E59; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:39:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ming.t460p (ovpn-8-20.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.8.20]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 921135C1B4; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:39:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:39:16 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Jens Axboe Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Theodore Ts'o , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Eric Biggers Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the fscrypt tree Message-ID: <20190116073915.GA1089@ming.t460p> References: <20190116132522.1b756433@canb.auug.org.au> <20190116031301.GC26146@ming.t460p> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:39:36 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 08:17:36PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 1/15/19 8:13 PM, Ming Lei wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 07:55:39PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 1/15/19 7:25 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: > >>> > >>> fs/ext4/readpage.c > >>> > >>> between commit: > >>> > >>> acc9eb0a6073 ("ext4: add fs-verity read support") > >>> > >>> from the fscrypt tree and commit: > >>> > >>> eb754eb2a953 ("block: allow bio_for_each_segment_all() to iterate over multi-page bvec") > >>> > >>> from the block tree. > >>> > >>> I fixed it up (see below - the former moved the code modified by the > >>> latter) 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. > >> > >> Ming, I'm pulling this, I thought we agreed none of these bullshit > >> renames? The fact that a patch looks like this: > >> > >> - for_each_bvec(bv, (it)->bvecs, __cur_iter, __cur_iter) \ > >> + for_each_segment(bv, (it)->bvecs, __cur_iter, __cur_iter) \ > >> > >> is SUPER annoying and does NOTHING but to cause merge conflicts. > >> > >> Resend it without that. > > > > We need to differentiate 'segment' with 'bvec' in bvec helpers, which is > > usually seldom used by drivers. For example, only two in-tree users(ceph, iov_iter). > > That is why I rename it, and seems Christoph prefers to do it too. > > If you want to do a rename, then we do it after. I don't want to deal with > weeks and weeks of fallout from this. Write a rename script that we can > then run at the end of the next merge window. You're going to be playing > catch-up until that happens if we go the current route, and honestly > I'm not at all interested in the fallout from that. > > I know exactly what will happen until 5.1-rc opens, and what my tree will > look like from having to deal with this. And then I know exactly what Linus > is going to say, and I can't even argue against it, since he'll be totally > right. > > Hence it's not going to happen this way. I can remove the renaming in patch 'block: rename bvec helpers', but change on bio_for_each_segment_all() is inevitable, and it is still an API change, so merge conflict can't avoid too. Thanks, Ming