Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the block tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 18:31:14 +1100

Hi all,

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 21:59:11 +0000 [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the scsi-mkp tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-clt.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   448025c103938 ("block/rnbd: client device does not care queue/rotational")
> 
> from the block tree and commit:
> 
>   e8e9884730b36 ("scsi: rnbd: Remove WRITE_SAME support")
> 
> from the scsi-mkp 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.
> 
> diff --cc drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-clt.c
> index 1f63f308eb394,dc192d2738854..0000000000000
> --- a/drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-clt.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-clt.c
> @@@ -1606,13 -1607,13 +1603,13 @@@ struct rnbd_clt_dev *rnbd_clt_map_devic
>   	}
>   
>   	rnbd_clt_info(dev,
> - 		       "map_device: Device mapped as %s (nsectors: %zu, logical_block_size: %d, physical_block_size: %d, max_write_same_sectors: %d, max_discard_sectors: %d, discard_granularity: %d, discard_alignment: %d, secure_discard: %d, max_segments: %d, max_hw_sectors: %d, wc: %d, fua: %d)\n",
>  -		       "map_device: Device mapped as %s (nsectors: %zu, logical_block_size: %d, physical_block_size: %d, max_discard_sectors: %d, discard_granularity: %d, discard_alignment: %d, secure_discard: %d, max_segments: %d, max_hw_sectors: %d, rotational: %d, wc: %d, fua: %d)\n",
> ++		       "map_device: Device mapped as %s (nsectors: %zu, logical_block_size: %d, physical_block_size: %d, max_discard_sectors: %d, discard_granularity: %d, discard_alignment: %d, secure_discard: %d, max_segments: %d, max_hw_sectors: %d, wc: %d, fua: %d)\n",
>   		       dev->gd->disk_name, dev->nsectors,
>   		       dev->logical_block_size, dev->physical_block_size,
> - 		       dev->max_write_same_sectors, dev->max_discard_sectors,
> + 		       dev->max_discard_sectors,
>   		       dev->discard_granularity, dev->discard_alignment,
>   		       dev->secure_discard, dev->max_segments,
>  -		       dev->max_hw_sectors, dev->rotational, dev->wc, dev->fua);
>  +		       dev->max_hw_sectors, dev->wc, dev->fua);
>   
>   	mutex_unlock(&dev->lock);
>   	rnbd_clt_put_sess(sess);

This is now a conflict between the scsi tree and the block tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell