Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with the btrfs-fixes tree

From: David Sterba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 12:59:44 +0100

On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 01:44:27PM +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   fs/btrfs/ctree.h
>   fs/btrfs/file.c
>   fs/btrfs/inode.c
>   fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
>   fs/btrfs/lzo.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   2ac3e062af024 ("btrfs: reduce extent threshold for autodefrag")
>   741b23a970a79 ("btrfs: prevent copying too big compressed lzo segment")
>   26fbac2517fca ("btrfs: autodefrag: only scan one inode once")
>   966d879bafaaf ("btrfs: defrag: allow defrag_one_cluster() to skip large extent which is not a target")
>   d5633b0dee02d ("btrfs: defrag: bring back the old file extent search behavior")
> 
> from the btrfs-fixes tree and commit:
> 
>   13b2f7ab699a5 ("btrfs: close the gap between inode_should_defrag() and autodefrag extent size threshold")
>   48b433a2ef82a ("btrfs: add lzo workspace buffer length constants")
>   db360c49d476f ("btrfs: autodefrag: only scan one inode once")
>   e6c69fcbee7ef ("btrfs: defrag: use control structure in btrfs_defrag_file()")
>   6b17743d934ec ("btrfs: defrag: bring back the old file extent search behavior")
> 
> from the btrfs tree.

The fixes and for-next snapshot branches got out of sync a bit, I've
checked that they merge without conflicts as of yesterday.