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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS 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 61447C43387 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:27:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25C4720675 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:27:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="Ui6KGInA" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2393505AbfAPO1c (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:27:32 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-f196.google.com ([209.85.214.196]:37479 "EHLO mail-pl1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729244AbfAPO1c (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:27:32 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f196.google.com with SMTP id b5so3110283plr.4 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 06:27:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gK4mfBGLBrh5POBPW2X5qTnQBKWYXHGFQBIKi/qw64s=; b=Ui6KGInAxCpbrCQzslYXq51lQ3HsLayqz/AVnSe/KNcXRjVTfw/xYgsSohFhoSzn9r aaE2pbNLowRm6wPmRF/UlE0qoBkvPJSt2ocyTQQdB6GEaIoH3Ubw4HcNKvWxBat6wUwa NCp2LnX06cXBh/ofbxlJc25Eb28dHXUz8Rj2eT3JkY1nTSjUDXM9686x8mIZibe3Helg DEsmnCFioUorVRJzZqpE5N+FUax4NSN14Lsy0/9fGvtRAMqxqE7vJKBjnINlq+nAK2t+ a5fFS6M5oGmdKx8uvAgYZcUpOCZZ3H3Tl/LtaJz1cQpSuwbWDCbAT1jckpymri/S5Izc Hzjg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gK4mfBGLBrh5POBPW2X5qTnQBKWYXHGFQBIKi/qw64s=; b=tYvJNlsbKu3F3bjLsGii3GxQuNAXUXlQWt6W+XIuoKRkzZlhFP7mUFfVJAlXfYvy68 lMy2e6ZFy60iJ1CxEumofI65VK4bcJndDVXcYu4I8H4vKhxzhHb8XCGlEvT6Erdv8hCJ EK9hMsOddnlZYhNkt8CaS8fwWP36UHbj2345/pWxM6SJbbvZpG7tKKvZgyxgzaiLZ1ko 03sDaXMqgwT7DSfy/HkHym3FkZgR6raNy2h9pdCs8CZSu6niKh7spgzXCdr4j1sU+2gb JnvA8CxmRO6ghlgeSDxfFjOBc1i1O2IYmW1gBv7lpioKn1fzGTUH3WhvaffWJcajGwnL Xzlw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukd1d+oxnT46TY++ACSGFn6zbZlTTbKUR+r/KtRI6xiBRACRMs68 A+AHLyAiUWWWnTxBF8cY3MjQNw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN7Nq5IWYjCaOaqn4HRZyfgPqLja+nJunKXMbaIUDzWiF55NTjKkX3LKHDhly2IbSh0yoOkrGg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:32c3:: with SMTP id z61mr10128272plb.114.1547648850951; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 06:27:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.121] (66.29.188.166.static.utbb.net. [66.29.188.166]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e86sm9073777pfb.6.2019.01.16.06.27.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Jan 2019 06:27:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the fscrypt tree To: Ming Lei Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Theodore Ts'o , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Eric Biggers References: <20190116132522.1b756433@canb.auug.org.au> <20190116031301.GC26146@ming.t460p> <20190116073915.GA1089@ming.t460p> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <62f1085d-a436-d0ab-6bc1-2b3d7d0ea2c7@kernel.dk> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:27:25 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190116073915.GA1089@ming.t460p> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 1/16/19 12:39 AM, Ming Lei wrote: > 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. That's not what I'm complaining about, API changes are inevitable for something like this. What I'm complaining about is the very example I posted above, and which has already caused issues. That's a frivolous name change. Don't do it. -- Jens Axboe